read_deck_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it declares read-only intent, names the return format (plain strings of titles and body text), and quantifies the size tradeoff against inspect_slide. It stops short of saying what is omitted (images, tables, charts, shape text), which matters for a lossy extractor.

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?

Three short sentences with the core identity and the key differentiator front-loaded, followed by usage and parameter notes. No filler.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back and how it compares to the heavier alternative. The one gap is not clarifying which content is excluded from the text extraction.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so slideRange syntax, includeNotes default, and presentationId resolution are already fully documented in the schema. The description only names slideRange and speaker notes without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lightweight text extractor: returns slide titles and body text') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_slide by the ~20x size difference. An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear use cases ('content review, narrative analysis, or any read-only text task') and implicitly routes detail-heavy needs to inspect_slide via the size comparison. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, e.g. when formatting, images, or shape-level text matter.

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