slides_getMetadata

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds what is being read (metadata about slides/dimensions). However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as return format or potential volume of data, though the annotation lowers the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 parameter and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but vague. Without an output schema, the phrase 'slides, dimensions, etc.' leaves ambiguity about the exact metadata returned, though it covers the core purpose.

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 only parameter, presentationId, is fully documented in the schema with 'Presentation ID or URL.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it 'Gets metadata about a presentation' with explicit examples ('slides, dimensions, etc.'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_getText, slides_find, and slides_getImages by focusing on structural metadata rather than content.

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 its purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other slides tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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