Get Slide Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the term 'dump' strongly imply a read-only operation, and the listed content types clarify what is returned. It does not explicitly state that the slide is not modified, but the implication is clear.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides the intended use case. Each sentence is purposeful, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the major categories of returned content and the intended use case, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention alternative tools or a more detailed return structure, but it is largely complete.

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 only parameter, slideId, has a schema description ('The ID of the slide to inspect') which is clear and covers 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the scope as 'everything on a slide', listing specific content types (text content, shapes, images, positions, styles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text_content and get_node_tree by emphasizing its comprehensive coverage.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Best for understanding what is on a slide before editing.' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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