read_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the return contract: title placeholder, bullets placeholder split into lines, and all non-empty strings in z-order, including text boxes and shape labels. It does not discuss error behavior or side effects, but this is a read operation and the core semantics are well disclosed.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear return signature. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about field semantics, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides a rich output contract despite the absence of an output schema, which is valuable for an agent. It omits edge-case behavior such as out-of-range indexes and does not explain doc_id, but the level of detail is otherwise sufficient for typical use of a read operation.

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 adds meaning to 'index' by explicitly stating it is 0-based and ties it to slide position. However, 'doc_id' is left entirely to the schema's bare name with no explanation of its format or how to obtain it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('a slide's text content'), and quantifies the indexing scheme ('by 0-based index'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_slides or get_text by focusing on a single slide's full text content, including non-placeholder shapes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_text or list_slides. The inclusion of graphics-built text boxes implies broader coverage, but no direct comparison, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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