list_slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return contract ({slides: [{index, title}], count), which is helpful. It does not mention side effects, ordering, errors, or auth requirements, though 'list' suggests a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it includes the output shape with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool, the description gives the output schema and a clear listing behavior. It is slightly incomplete by not explicitly stating the slides are from the document identified by doc_id and not covering edge-case behavior, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description never mentions doc_id or explains how it relates to the listing. Schema only gives the parameter name and type. Since coverage is low, the description does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List slides') and specifies the exact result shape. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_slide (single slide content) or add_slide/delete_slide (mutations).

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?

The function is self-evident for retrieving slide metadata, so the intended use is implied. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over read_slide or list_documents, and no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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