read_slide_xml

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the return payload (full raw OOXML, the slide1.xml content), which tells the agent to expect a large XML blob, and 'Read' implies non-mutation. It does not state that the operation is non-destructive, nor warn about output size, so it stops short of the disclosure level a no-annotation tool warrants.

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, front-loaded with the primary capability and the filter variant before the skill-context note. No redundant restatement of the name or padded phrasing; every clause contributes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does (raw OOXML for the slide, or the filtered shape element per the schema). It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only an output-size caution is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so slideIndex, shapeId, and presentationId are already fully documented in the input schema. The description corroborates the shape-filter behavior ('or filter to a specific shape') but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 the full raw OOXML of a slide') plus a secondary mode ('filter to a specific shape'), and pins down the exact artifact returned (ppt/slides/slide1.xml). An agent can distinguish this from edit_slide_xml or read_slide_zip by the 'read raw XML of one slide' framing.

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?

'Use with the /pptx skill's OOXML knowledge' implies the context in which this tool is appropriate (when you need to reason about raw XML structure), which is more than nothing. But it names no alternatives (read_slide_zip, inspect_slide, read_shape_paragraphs) and gives no when-not-to-use condition, so routing is left largely to inference.

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