ppt_read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action (extract text) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing file, non-pptx format), performance characteristics, or whether the tool modifies the file. The description is functional but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that conveys all essential information without any extraneous words. Every element earns its place: the verb, resource type, file format, and the 'slide by slide' detail. It is optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at the output structure ('slide by slide'). However, it could more explicitly state the return format (e.g., an array of strings per slide) and error behaviors, which would make it fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter ('Absolute path to the .pptx file') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Extract', the resource 'all text content from a Microsoft PowerPoint (.pptx) file', and the manner 'slide by slide'. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like ppt_create (creation) and word_read (Word files), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., word_read for Word files, note_read for notes). An agent reading the description alone cannot determine under what circumstances this tool is appropriate or when to choose a sibling tool, leaving a significant gap in decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.