get_speaker_notes

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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the slide doesn't have notes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., text format, structure), error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools in the context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of presenter notes or how 'doc_name' defaults work in practice, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('presenter notes from a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slide_content' or 'get_slide_info', which also retrieve slide information, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific scope.

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. With siblings like 'get_slide_content' and 'get_slide_info' that might overlap in retrieving slide data, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what makes it unique for accessing presenter notes specifically.

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