Read a slide

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the full return payload (including exact source with line numbers), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid slide reference, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentence with the most important information (what you get back) first and zero filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, enumerating the four returned components makes the definition adequately complete without an output schema. Only the error case for a bad slide reference is left unstated.

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 100% and the schema already explains the dir default and the three accepted slide forms (index, "h.v", id). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 enumerates exactly what comes back (MDX body, frontmatter, speaker notes, source text with line numbers), which makes the resource specific and distinguishes it from the sibling deck_outline that merely lists slides. It never states a verb like 'read', so it reads as a return-value spec rather than an action statement, but 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus deck_outline, slide_render, or deck_preview, and no note that it requires an existing slide. The agent must infer the retrieval use case from the noun phrase alone.

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