slides_getText

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

With readOnlyHint: true in annotations, the description's 'retrieves' aligns and adds the specific scope of text content. However, it does not disclose details like whether speaker notes are included or if the presentation must be shared, but for a simple read-only tool, additional context is minimal.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and a readOnlyHint, but no output schema exists. The description does not explain the return format or scope of the text (e.g., all slides vs. specific slides), leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 described in the schema ('Presentation ID or URL'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('text content of a Google Slides presentation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like slides_getMetadata and slides_getImages by focusing on text 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 the tool's usage (when you need text from a slides presentation) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like slides_find or slides_getMetadata. There is no exclusion or alternative naming.

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