Get Interactive Elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature and that it returns a list, which is useful, but lacks details like error behavior, pagination, or permission needs.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. No redundant phrases; the examples ('polls, embeds') add value without bloat.

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, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits details about return formatting, empty results, or error conditions, which is more noticeable given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema's slideId parameter has no description, and the tool description covers 0% of parameters. The phrase 'on a slide' indirectly maps slideId to the target slide, but gives no format or constraints beyond the name itself.

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 'List' and identifies the resource as 'interactive elements on a slide' with concrete examples (polls, embeds). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slide_context or get_node_tree.

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 description implies a use case—when you need to know what interactive elements exist on a slide—but does not explicitly contrast with similar get tools or state exclusions. 'Read-only' hints it's safe but no alternative guidance is provided.

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