get_slide_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if it requires an active presentation session), error conditions (e.g., invalid slide numbers), or output format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 slide info') and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what information is retrieved, 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 slide metadata), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what info is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling) and doesn't explain return values, which is a gap since no output schema exists. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves room for improvement in 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%, with both parameters (doc_name and slide_number) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on slides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('slide info') with specific attributes (number, layout, text item count). It distinguishes from siblings like get_slide_content (which retrieves content details) or get_slide_count (which counts slides), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_slide_content (which might return more detailed content) or get_presentation_info (which provides presentation-level data). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open presentation, or contextual cues for selection among similar retrieval tools.

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