Get presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at the output format ('structural JSON') but does not explain authentication requirements, whether the operation is read-only (obvious from name), or what components are included in the returned JSON. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose and output type in a compact manner without sacrificing clarity.

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 well-documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means more detail about what the structural JSON actually contains (e.g., slides, layout, text) would improve completeness. The description provides a bare-bones outline but leaves the user guessing about the full context.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (account and presentationId). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema is sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 tool retrieves a Google Slides presentation and indicates the return type as 'structural JSON'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_slides_create or google_slides_delete_slide, and from other get operations like google_drive_get.

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 usage is reasonably implied: use this tool when you need to fetch a presentation's structural JSON. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used. There is no guidance on how it compares to other Google Slides operations.

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