read-doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses modes, pptx output format, source requirements (authHeader for URL), and suggests using indepth before editing. It does not mention side effects, but as a read tool, none are expected.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details modes, pptx behavior, sources, and usage advice. It is concise but could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullets) for clarity. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers modes, sources, and usage hints. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given no output schema. The advice 'read before editing' adds useful context for workflow.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond schema: it explains modes (summary, indepth, focused) with examples, describes the remote source structure, clarifies that context and userQuery are only for focused mode, and notes that url requires authHeader. This is high value.

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 it reads and analyzes PDF, DOCX, Excel, or PowerPoint files, lists three modes, specifies behavior for pptx, and mentions two source types. It also differentiates from sibling edit-doc by advising to use 'indepth' before editing.

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 clear context for when to use each mode and hints at alternatives (use 'indepth' before edit-doc). It does not explicitly exclude other siblings, but the sibling list is dominated by creation tools, making this tool's purpose distinct.

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