Read a presentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying return structure and ordering, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or whether hidden/master elements are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. It is dense but every clause contributes relevant return-value 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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for characterizing return values, and it does so at a useful level. It is not fully exhaustive about retrieval caveats or usage routing, but it is contextually adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and the schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents .glide.json handling and absolute/relative resolution. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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?

States a specific read operation and enumerates the returned content: title, theme, slides in show order, and element ids/names/text for text, icon, and image elements. The resource and scope are clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as render_slide, edit_presentation, or export_pptx.

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 explains what is returned but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_slide, edit_presentation, or export_pptx. Usage is only implied by the read-oriented wording.

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