document.get_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about not-found behavior, whether the id is required (it is, per the schema), or what the returned shape object contains. The only real disclosure is the cross-slide search scope, which is genuinely useful but insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One short sentence, zero filler, with the scope qualifier placed where it matters. Nothing to trim and nothing redundant.

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 single-parameter read there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should have covered the return value and the missing-id case; it covers only lookup scope. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for interpreting results.

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?

The description's "by id" maps onto the single shape_id parameter but adds no format, source, or constraints beyond the name. "Across all slides" does usefully state that no slide identifier is needed, partially compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("look up a shape by id") and adds scope ("across all slides"), which separates it from document.list_shapes and slide-scoped lookups. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the read-only lookup intent 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "across all slides" tells the agent it does not need to supply slide context, which hints at when this beats list_shapes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to how a shape_id is obtained.

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