slide_get_file_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Get' reasonably signals a read-only retrieval, and the single-resource scope is clear, but the description does not mention response contents, error behavior, or permissions. It is adequate for a simple fetch operation but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the object, and the lookup key, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation knowledge: what action is taken and which identifier is required. It lacks explicit return-shape or not-found behavior, but those are minor for such a straightforward operation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with the description 'File restore ID.' The description's phrase 'by ID' reinforces this, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file restore') and clearly scopes the operation to a single item by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as slide_list_file_restores and slide_browse_file_restore, which imply bulk or browsing operations.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies this tool is for fetching one known restore when the ID is available, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose it over list or browse alternatives. Usage context is only implied rather than directly stated.

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