Get deck

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a non-mutating read, and the description usefully discloses the return shape (outline plus authoring JSON). It says nothing about size limits, pagination, or behavior when slide_id is omitted versus supplied, so it adds only moderate context over the annotation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return payload and appends the use case, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, describing the returned outline and authoring JSON is the right core content. However, deck_id semantics and what happens when slide_id is absent or invalid remain unaddressed, leaving an agent to guess at invocation edge cases.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. The phrase "or one slide" hints that slide_id narrows the result to a single slide, but deck_id is never explained and the required/optional distinction is left to 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (deck outline plus the authoring JSON of its slides or one slide), which clearly separates it from list_decks or inspect_changes. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly for differentiation.

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?

"e.g. to edit with update_slide" ties the read to the write sibling that consumes its output, which implies the read-before-edit workflow. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g. vs list_decks for discovery), so usage is only partially covered.

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