slide_read

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a non-mutating read, so the description only needs incremental context. It does add value by specifying the returned content categories (metadata, elements, notes), but says nothing about error behavior for unknown deckId/slideId, scope of the element payload, or whether notes are omitted when empty.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero redundant wording. Nothing in it repeats the annotations or schema, and every clause (metadata, elements, notes) contributes information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is close to complete: it tells the agent what content comes back, which substitutes for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is the lack of any routing hint toward the sibling read tools.

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%, with both deckId and slideId documented including UUID format and pattern constraints, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the notion that the slide is addressed within a deck, which is already evident from 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a specific slide'), and enumerates the payload scope: metadata, elements, and speaker notes. That scope implicitly separates it from element_read and deck_read, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-slide read reached via a slideId, presumably after slide_list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer element_read over the elements embedded here, and no note about behavior when the slide does not exist.

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