List all slide presentations (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). Use this when asked to list, find, or search presentations, decks, or slideshows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50) | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| server_id | No | Filter by server ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any details about pagination behavior, default limits, or how server_id filtering affects results. The description is minimally transparent but sufficient for a simple list operation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and uses parenthetical synonyms to clarify scope. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?
The description is complete for a simple list tool: it states what it lists and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the tool name and description imply a list of slide presentations. It does not explain return format or default pagination, but the schema covers parameters, and the behavior is straightforward. Slightly more detail about response structure would elevate it.
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 five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the word 'all,' which loosely relates to the absence of required filters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all slide presentations' and provides synonyms (slides, powerpoint, deck, keynote). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_documents and list_sheets by focusing specifically on slide presentations.
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 the tool: 'Use this when asked to list, find, or search presentations, decks, or slideshows.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when a specific presentation is needed, use get_slide_presentation), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.