get_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the 'zero-based' indexing detail and implies a read-only operation via 'Return', but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any other edge-case behavior. The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple read 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element earn its place: the verb, the object, and the crucial indexing detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the two parameters, the description covers the essential usage. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to use it versus get_presentation, and does not mention potential out-of-bounds behavior, but these are minor gaps for this straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that slide_index is zero-based, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type declaration. presentation_id is not described, but its purpose is obvious from the parameter name and sibling context.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('full content of a single slide'), and the indexing convention ('zero-based index'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_presentation (whole presentation) and set_slide (mutation).

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 usage when needing a single slide's content, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as get_presentation, nor does it state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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