slide_collection_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description's only job is to add context and it adds almost none. It says nothing about result ordering, whether collections are returned with their slides inline, or whether large decks are truncated or paginated.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the verb and scope stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the guidance the tool would benefit from.

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 single-parameter read tool with an annotation covering safety, the essentials are present: what it lists and which deck it applies to. It remains incomplete on return shape and pagination behavior, which matter for a list operation on a potentially large deck.

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 required parameter (deckId) with 100% schema description coverage and a UUID pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond that and simply implies the deck scoping already conveyed by the parameter name; 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?

A clear verb plus resource ("List all slide collections") scoped to a presentation deck, which lets an agent distinguish it from slide_list or deck_list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling collection tools such as slide_collection_read or slide_collection_create, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives even though slide_collection_read, slide_collection_create, and slide_collection_delete sit in the same family. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumerate-everything variant.

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