Recent slideshows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results span both drafts and finished sets and are workspace-scoped, which is useful content-level context, but it says nothing about ordering/recency despite the 'Recent slideshows' title, nor about pagination 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?

A single short sentence fragment with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope. It is appropriately sized, though being a bare fragment it carries no explicit action verb.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The notable gap is that the title promises 'recent' ordering while the description never states sort order or recency semantics, leaving the agent to guess what the list returns first.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents limit and workspaceId. The description's phrase 'in this workspace' loosely reinforces the workspaceId default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (slideshows) and its scope (drafts and finished sets, in this workspace), but offers no verb — it is a noun phrase that only implies a listing operation. It never distinguishes itself from get_slideshow or list_slideshow_templates, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_slideshow (single item) or list_slideshow_templates, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the 'list_' prefix in the name.

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