slides_pages_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the page can be a slide, layout, or master, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other operational traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The core action and resource type are front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration of page types adds useful specificity without redundancy.

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 GET operation with two fully described required parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly; no output schema exists, but the expected result is sufficiently implied by 'Get a single page'.

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%, and both presentationId and pageObjectId are already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource: a single page (slide, layout, or master) from a presentation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_get (which gets the presentation itself) and slides_pages_getThumbnail (which gets an image).

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention slides_get for presentation-level access or slides_pages_getThumbnail for page thumbnails, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name and sibling list.

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