deck_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the three categories of data returned. However, it says nothing about pagination, truncation on large decks, depth of the slide list, or whether missing/inaccessible decks error.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the resource and returned content front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably slightly too terse given the three outputs it promises, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned fields, which is enough to decide whether to call it. It is incomplete on shape and limits of the slide list/collections (pagination, ordering), which matters for a tool that can return many nested items.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a UUID pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description only reinforces that the read is scoped to one deck; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata, slide list, and slide collections for a specific deck. It is clearly a deck-scoped aggregate read, though it does not name which sibling to use instead when only one of those sub-resources is needed.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as slide_list, slide_collection_list, or element_read, even though the tool's output overlaps with all three. At best the phrase "for a specific deck" implies the scope, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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