List Presentation Comments

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by mentioning the optional max_comments limit. However, the read-only, idempotent nature is already covered by annotations, and the description does not clarify subtleties like whether resolved comments or replies are included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 redundant phrasing. Every element earns its place: the resource, the action, and the optional limiting parameter.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, this definition is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and the optional limit. It lacks only explicit context about alternative comment tools and details like comment types or reply handling, but those are not required for basic invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description partially compensates by explaining max_comments as an optional limiter and by identifying the target resource as a Google Presentation for presentation_id. However, user_google_email is left to be inferred from its name, and no format or source guidance is provided. Partial compensation is present but not complete.

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 specific action ('List all comments') and a specific resource ('from a Google Presentation'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_document_comments and list_spreadsheet_comments. It also conveys the optional limiting behavior via max_comments. This is exact and actionable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_presentation_comment, list_document_comments, or list_spreadsheet_comments. The resource scope is implied, but the description does not say when to prefer this tool or when to avoid it.

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