slides_list_elements

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 discloses what the tool returns (shape_ids and per-element details) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or error behavior. For a listing tool, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with a practical usage tip, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's value.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, key output fields, and a specific use case. Minor ambiguities exist (e.g., whether it lists all elements or only shapes, despite saying 'shape_ids' then 'each element'), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining the parameters, but it does not mention slide_id or presentation_id at all. The tool name and description imply slide_id refers to the slide being inspected, but presentation_id's role is left entirely to inference. The example references a 'layout' without clarifying which parameter corresponds to it.

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 tool's function with a specific verb 'Discover' and resource 'shape_ids on a slide', enumerating the output fields (objectId, shape type, placeholder role, current text). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the tool to use instead of guessing shape_ids, which is a unique purpose among the slides_* tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of guessing shape_ids' and gives a concrete example use case ('to find a layout's title/body placeholder'). This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with a sibling tool like slides_read or slides_set_text.

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