extract_presentation_text

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: speaker notes are returned in speaker_notes but excluded from all_text_combined, which contains only audience-visible text. This clarifies output semantics without contradicting the annotation.

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 tight and layered: the action is stated first, then the intended usage scenario, then the output behavior regarding speaker notes. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetitive or generic 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields, but it does cover the important speaker-note separation. The only meaningful gaps are the exact behavior of include_slide_info and what happens when presentation_id is null, which the schema leaves undocumented. Overall, this is a well-rounded definition for a read-only extraction 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 0%, so the description needed to explain the two parameters, but it does not mention presentation_id or include_slide_info at all. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but include_slide_info's effect is not described, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 ('Extract all text content from all slides in the presentation') and clearly scopes the operation to the whole deck. This distinguishes it from sibling extract_slide_text, which works on a single slide.

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 gives an explicit use case: use as the content-QA read on a finished deck, with concrete checks like missing sections, duplicated sections, typos, wrong order, and leftover template placeholder text. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention extract_slide_text as the alternative for a single slide, so it stops short of a 5.

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