slides_pages_getThumbnail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to state safety. It adds that the tool returns a URL (not the image itself), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or how the URL should be used, leaving some behavioral gaps beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It has no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention the return format (e.g., a URL string) and any constraints. It does mention 'image URL', which is some guidance, but it omits details about how the URL is delivered, possible error responses, or any required permissions. For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 (presentationId, pageObjectId, thumbnailProperties.mimeType, thumbnailProperties.thumbnailSize) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, syntax, or relationships, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (get) and resource (thumbnail image URL for a page), specifying it applies to slide, layout, or master. It is distinct from sibling tools like slides_get (which retrieves the presentation) and slides_pages_get (which retrieves page content), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. An agent must infer from the name that this is for thumbnails only, but no explicit direction is provided.

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