read_shape_paragraphs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well for a read operation: it states the return type (paragraph XML as a string) and explains the key behavioral trait that formatting is preserved. It still does not explicitly state read-only semantics, error behavior for shapes without text bodies, or permission assumptions.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and return, the second explains the use case and value. It is front-loaded with zero 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 simple read tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why it matters. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could mention failure modes or how multiple paragraphs are concatenated.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description references the shape's text body conceptually but adds no parameter-specific syntax, defaults, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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: 'Read raw OOXML <a:p> paragraphs from a shape's text body.' It clearly distinguishes the output from plain text extraction by noting it preserves formatting that textRange.text strips. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like read_slide_xml or read_paragraphs, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use it when you need the raw XML formatting that textRange.text loses, and pair it with the /pptx skill's OOXML knowledge. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool versus read_slide_xml or edit_shape_paragraphs.

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