Read Marp Deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context about vault behavior (session-active vs. explicit vaultPath) and output shape variation by `part`. It aligns with annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond them.

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 about 100 words, structured with details on each `part` variant, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but includes necessary clarifications. The only issue is the parameter inconsistency, but for conciseness alone it is effective.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, output shape variation, and vault context well. However, the critical gap of missing parameters in schema while describing them in text undermines completeness. An output schema exists, so return values are explained elsewhere, but the parameter confusion makes it incomplete for actual 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 input schema has 0 parameters, yet the description mentions `part`, `slideId`, `index`, and `vaultPath` as if they are arguments. This is a direct contradiction between description and schema, making it misleading for an agent. The description adds no valid meaning because the parameters don't exist 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 clearly states the tool reads a Marp presentation deck, defines what that is (markdown with frontmatter and separators), and distinguishes from the sibling `marp.update` for mutations. The verb 'read' and resource 'Marp deck' are unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Read-only. Use marp.update to mutate,' providing guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling. It also explains the effect of the `part` field and the vault path fallback. However, it doesn't contrast with other read tools like `notes.read` for regular markdown, but that's implicit.

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