Get Slide Grid

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and the description adds the return shape ('rows and slides with their IDs and names'), which is useful context. It does not discuss ordering or behavior on empty decks, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the full slide deck structure: rows and slides with their IDs and names'. It contains no filler and every phrase adds meaning.

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 zero-input getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned (rows and slides with IDs and names). The tool's low complexity means no critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the baseline. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Get the full slide deck structure' and specifies the contents ('rows and slides with their IDs and names'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_slide_context or get_node_tree by focusing on the full deck-level grid.

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 the tool is used when you need the complete slide deck structure, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_slide_context or get_node_tree. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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