get_slide_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'counts and details' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an open presentation, what happens if the slide number is invalid, if there are rate limits, or the format of the returned details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all elements on a slide') and follows with specific return details. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving content details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what is returned but not the structure or format of the details, leaving the agent uncertain about the response. However, it does cover the basic purpose adequately, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps in behavioral and output context.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (slide_number and doc_name) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the scope of 'all elements' or default behavior for doc_name. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 specific action ('Get all elements on a slide') and resource ('slide'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_slide_info or get_slide_count by specifying it returns content details rather than metadata. It explicitly lists the types of elements returned (text items, images, shapes, tables), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving slide content details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_slide_info (which might return metadata) or other siblings. It lacks any 'when-not' scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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