read_slide_zip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive behavior: the tool is a read operation, it returns raw zip members by category, and it auto-discovers text/XML files when no paths are given. It stops short of stating what happens on invalid paths, whether large/binary files are truncated or skipped, or side effects, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 core action, with zero filler. There is mild overlap between the return-value sentence and the 'inspect chart data, rels' sentence, but it is efficient overall.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating what is returned, and all parameters are schema-documented. The only shortfall is behavioral edge cases (errors, size limits, non-text file handling), which are minor for a straightforward read tool.

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 (paths, slideIndex, presentationId) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'when no paths specified, auto-discovers all text/XML files' largely restates the schema's own wording on 'paths' and adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Read multiple files from the exported slide zip', followed by an explicit enumeration of what comes back (slide XML, relationships, chart XMLs, Content_Types). It also draws a clear boundary against the sibling read_slide_xml, so an agent can differentiate the two tools without opening either 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?

It names the alternative tool explicitly ('beyond what read_slide_xml provides') and states the conditions that select each one: use this one for chart data, rels, or other zip contents. It also documents the default behavior when 'paths' is omitted, which is a genuine usage decision point.

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