r7_slide_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that placeholder geometry and typography are resolved from layout/master so inherited values are reported instead of null, and that the deck's layouts are returned as a side effect. It omits read-only/safety framing and error behavior, but the inherited-value resolution is real behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and normalized structure before the inherited-value clarification. The first sentence is a long enumeration but every listed field earns its place in setting output expectations; the layout-return note is a useful trailing addition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully takes on the job of describing the return shape (per-object fields plus deck layouts). With 100% schema coverage on the four parameters and the inherited-value behavior explained, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though return pagination/large-deck handling is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of resolving layout/master placeholders loosely maps to includeInherited but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Read a PPTX slide') and enumerates the normalized fields returned (id, type, geometry, text, font, fill, stroke, alignment, paragraphs), which goes well beyond the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like r7_read or r7_inspect, so the agent must infer the PPTX-slide-specific scope from the name plus content.

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 when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative among the many siblings. The closing clause ('so the next slide can be built on a real one') implies a read-before-create workflow, but the agent must infer this rather than being told to prefer this over r7_read or r7_inspect.

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