Presentations Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description goes beyond that by explaining how to use the fields parameter for partial responses and the revision guard, adding valuable behavioral nuance.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a tight bullet list of field mask use cases. Every line earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It explains the fields parameter in detail and the revision guard, but does not explicitly state behavior when fields is omitted (e.g., returns full presentation). This is a minor gap but not critical.

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 provides basic descriptions for fields and presentationId, but the description enhances understanding significantly by explaining the structure and purpose of the fields mask (e.g., slides(objectId,pageElements(...))). This compensates for the 67% schema coverage and adds practical value.

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 explicitly states 'Read a Google Slides presentation (presentations.get)', which is a specific verb (read) and resource (presentation). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like presentations_batch_update, which handles modifications.

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?

Clear context for when to use the tool (reading a presentation) is provided, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like presentations_batch_update. The field mask use cases (slot resolution, embed verification, revision guard) add practical guidance.

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