slide_collection_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral content by stating that membership is returned as slide IDs (not full slide objects), but it says nothing about error behavior for missing collections or ordering of the returned IDs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'slide ID membership' is slightly compressed and could be clearer about return shape.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it could do more to characterize the returned details and membership list (shape, ordering, pagination).

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% and both parameters (deckId, slideCollectionId) are fully documented in the schema with format and pattern constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond confirming that both identifiers scope the read, so the 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a specific slide collection), and specifies the return content (details plus slide ID membership), which distinguishes it from the sibling slide_collection_list. It does not explicitly name which sibling it is not, so it falls just short of 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 word 'specific' implies the tool is for retrieving one known collection rather than enumerating collections, which hints at when to use it over slide_collection_list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or exclusion guidance.

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