Get presentation

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. It only says the tool returns 'structural JSON' and does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what the JSON structure contains, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and output detail is a notable gap.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it adds the useful qualifier 'structural JSON'. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'structural JSON' includes (e.g., slides, layouts, text elements), nor does it clarify the read-only nature or any prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Account nickname to use.' and 'Presentation ID.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Google Slides presentation'), and clarifies the output is 'structural JSON'. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like google_slides_get_page, which targets a page rather than the whole presentation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from google_docs_get or google_sheets_get beyond the resource name, so it falls short of a 5.

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: call this when you need the full structural JSON of a Google Slides presentation. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives like google_slides_get_page for page-level access. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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