List layouts and masters

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main addition is contextual: it clarifies that the tool 'only reads what the deck already has' and that the API cannot alter theme/master sets. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error or edge-case behavior.

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?

Two sentences pack all essential information with no filler. The returned structure is front-loaded, and the usage constraint is integrated without bloat.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete: it names the return fields, explains how the output is used, and sets expectations about API limitations. No output schema exists, but none is needed here because the description covers the core return shape.

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?

The single parameter presentation_id is already fully described in the schema with a clear example URL and source. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('the presentation's theme building blocks'), then enumerates the exact returned components: layouts[], masters[], and notesMasterObjectId. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_slides and get_presentation.

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 explains a concrete use case: layout object ids feed add_slide's layout_object_id. It also provides an explicit exclusion — the Slides API cannot import a new theme or change the master set, and themes are chosen in the UI — which tells an agent when not to attempt a mutation.

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