List slides

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's added value is the return shape – index, object ID, title and layout ID – which is genuinely useful because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting ordering guarantees, pagination, or behavior on an invalid presentationId.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and then the returned fields in a compact clause. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field list that would otherwise be missing. Only minor gaps remain – pagination, error behavior, and any ordering caveat.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that presentationId comes from the Slides URL. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 ('List') and resource ('every slide in a deck') and enumerates the fields returned (index, object ID, title, layout ID), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_slide for single-slide retrieval, but 'every slide' implicitly contrasts with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the tool for enumerating all slides, versus get_slide/get_presentation which are presumably narrower. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_presentation or get_slide, and no prerequisite or failure-condition guidance.

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