List slides (compact inventory)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context on top: it returns a compact inventory, truncates visible text to 160 chars, and enumerates the exact shape of the returned data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences pack in the return payload, the primary use case, the relationship to mutation tools, and the boundary with sibling tools. Nothing is wasted, and the key idea 'compact inventory' plus 'read to start from' is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It enumerates presentationId, title, revisionId, pageSizePt, slideCount, and per-slide fields including elements, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Combined with guidance on when to call it and when to use alternatives, the contextual picture is complete.

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 schema is fully self-sufficient: presentation_id is described with its source (URL or create_presentation output) and minLength validation. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics.

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 is explicit: it is a compact inventory (read-only overview) of the deck, listing exactly which presentation-level and slide-level fields are returned. It also distinguishes itself from get_presentation and get_page by noting those are needed for full text and geometry. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from its siblings.

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 clear usage direction: 'the read to start from' and 'call this before editing' because mutation tools reference the object ids it returns. It also names the alternatives (get_presentation/get_page) for deeper per-element data, so an agent knows when not to use this tool.

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