list_slides

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 usefully states that the result includes titles, scripts, and render status, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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, action-first sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the resource, scope, and primary output fields in one line.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate context by naming what the response contains. Minor details such as result ordering, sorting, or behavior for projects with no slides are not specified, but they are not critical for selecting or invoking this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, project_id, already has a clear schema description. The tool description adds only the generic phrase 'a specific project' and no extra detail about where the ID comes from or what values are valid, landing at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List all slides belonging to a specific project.' It also names the key output fields (titles, scripts, render status), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_projects or get_project.

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 clearly implies its use case: call this tool when you need all slides for a known project_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_project or list_projects, nor does it state when not to use it, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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