list_slide_templates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the non-mutating behavior. The description adds that it lists all templates, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as return shape or whether templates come from the current presentation vs a global library.

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 filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, scope, and resource.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential context. It could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes a 'slide layout template' in relation to sibling template tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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 are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('all available slide layout templates'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the 'all available' scope distinguishes it from get/apply template tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_template_info or apply_slide_template. Usage is only implied by the tool name and 'list all' phrasing.

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