Get Presentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: include_speaker_notes returns each slide's speaker notes and the object ID of the shape holding them, and that shape ID is the only valid target for note edits. This is useful cross-tool context that annotations do not provide.

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 main description is a single, focused sentence. The longer explanation is placed inside the parameter description where it is directly relevant, and every sentence there adds operational value rather than repeating schema content.

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 output schema present, annotations covering the read-only safety profile, and full parameter schema coverage, the description is nearly complete for a simple read tool. The main gap is not explaining when to use get_page or other presentation-related tools, but the available context signals largely compensate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The include_speaker_notes parameter description adds significant meaning by explaining what the flag returns and why the returned shape ID matters for later note edits. The other two parameters are already self-explanatory in 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 states a clear verb and resource: get details about a Google Slides presentation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_page and get_page_thumbnail because it targets the presentation-level object, though 'details' is somewhat generic and does not specify what is returned.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. The only usage hint is buried in the include_speaker_notes parameter, which explains when to pass True, but the tool-level description does not help an agent choose between it and related presentation/page tools.

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