read_pptx

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the default 60-slide cap, the extraction of speaker notes, the expected response structure (slides[] with slide_number/title/text/notes), and specific ToolFailure codes (PATH_NOT_FOUND / NOT_A_FILE / FILE_TOO_LARGE / UNSUPPORTED_EXTENSION). This informs the agent about limits and failure modes that annotations do not convey.

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 definition uses well-organized Google-style sections (purpose, constraint, Args, Returns, Raises) with front-loaded purpose and zero filler. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema's own descriptions, which slightly reduces the efficiency score.

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?

Since an output schema exists and the description separately explains the slides[] return shape, return values are doubly covered. Parameter meanings are in the schema, the .ppt limitation is disclosed, error codes are enumerated, and the default range behavior is stated — nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description's Args section restates parameter meanings (file_path path, slide_start default 1, slide_end default up to 60) that the schema already documents, adding marginal value beyond reinforcing defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'PowerPoint(.pptx)에서 슬라이드별 제목, 본문, 스피커 노트를 추출한다' (extracts title, body, speaker notes per slide). It explicitly names the .pptx format, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other formats (read_pdf, read_docx, read_svg, read_image).

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?

Clear usage context is provided: the .ppt exclusion ('옛 형식(.ppt)은 지원하지 않습니다') serves as a when-not, and the guidance to paginate large presentations via slide_start/slide_end is actionable operational direction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use read_pdf for PDF files'), so routing is implied by format naming rather than stated.

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