get_slide_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it reveals return contents, units (inches), 0-based slide addressing, durable slide_id, and live-mode semantics including file-lock behavior and unsaved-edit caveat. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-style inspection tool.

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 dense but well organized: output contents first, then practical use, then addressing and live semantics. Each sentence carries load-bearing information, though the live-mode sentence is long and slightly dense.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the key invocation details and even previews output fields. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit file_path format guidance, but overall the agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does for slide and live. It defines slide as '0-based index or {"slide_id": N}' and explains auto/force/off behaviors in detail. file_path is not elaborated beyond the schema's string type, but that parameter is self-evident from its name.

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?

Opens with 'One slide in depth,' clearly naming the resource (a single slide) and the granularity (layout, hidden flag, notes presence, every shape with geometry and text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presentation_info or list_elements without ambiguity.

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 statement 'Shape ids here are the addresses every editing tool takes; edit what it lists via the graphics pack' gives an explicit use case: obtain shape addresses before editing. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to choose this tool.

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