slides_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 disclose return behavior well: layout, numbered shapes with roles and positions, markdown text with bullet nesting, tables, images, speaker notes. It leaves unstated that the operation is read-only (only implied by 'Read') and says nothing about truncation or how offset/maxChars affect results.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then enumerates modes compactly with no filler sentences. Dense, but every clause conveys distinct information about output shape.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back for the default 'outline' mode and sketches 'text' and 'json'. The remaining gap is paging/truncation semantics tied to offset and maxChars, which an agent calling with large decks would need.

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 coverage is 50% (deck, slides, account are documented in-schema; format, offset, maxChars are not). The description fully compensates for 'format' by describing all three enum modes, but offset and maxChars remain completely undocumented in either location, leaving real gaps in call semantics.

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 and resource ('Read a Google Slides presentation as saved in Drive') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like slides_write, slides_edit and docs_read. The three named output modes further pin down exactly what the tool produces.

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?

Explains the three format choices and what each yields, noting 'outline' is the default, and cross-references slides_write/slides_edit by explaining the shape numbers they consume. However, it never states when to prefer this over docs_read/slides_open or any exclusions, so guidance is clear but not complete.

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