List Presentation Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether resolved comments are included, pagination behavior, or rate limits). With full annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

One efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation. However, it could be slightly improved by including a brief note about parameters without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema (reducing need to describe return values), the description is adequate but missing details like pagination, sorting, or whether all comments (including resolved) are listed. Annotations cover behavioral aspects, so completeness is moderate.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (user_google_email, presentation_id). Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description lacks any elaboration on their purpose or format, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'comments' with a specific scope 'from a Google Presentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_presentation_comment (which modifies comments) and list_document_comments (for Docs), providing unambiguous intent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for reading all comments, but does not mention that it is read-only (though annotations indicate this) or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., not for filtered queries). The guidance is implicit.

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