slides_get

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds a useful scope claim that the result includes 'the text on every slide,' but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or any other runtime behavior.

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 one short, front-loaded phrase with no filler or unnecessary words. Every part contributes to identifying the tool's output.

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 getter with one parameter, the description gives the core payload. However, it provides no output format, no guidance on when to prefer it, and no elaboration on the openWorld hint, leaving it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 0% description coverage and only a single presentationId string. The description adds the semantic that this ID refers to a presentation via 'A presentation's,' which partially compensates for the schema gap, but it does not explain where the ID comes from or its expected format.

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 identifies a specific resource (a presentation) and the returned content (structure and text on every slide), which is enough to distinguish it from slides_create and other sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', so it does not fully meet the 5 criterion.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the noun-phrase description, so an agent gets little help deciding between slides_get and related tools.

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