slides_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose what the output looks like, any limitations (e.g., formatting or size constraints), or authentication/permission needs. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no repetition or extra verbiage. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite the sparse description, the tool is simple (one parameter, read-only semantics), and an output schema exists to handle return-value details. The description explicitly covers what is read (metadata and text content) and the scope (all slides), making it largely complete for a basic read operation. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it compared to similar tools, which prevents a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not mention presentation_id at all, leaving its format and source ambiguous. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning or guidance for obtaining or providing the ID.

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 (Read) and resource (presentation), and clearly scopes the action to 'metadata and text content from all slides.' This distinguishes it from other slide tools (like slides_add_slide or slides_get_thumbnail) and from other read tools (docs_read, sheets_read).

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 context by naming the read operation on a presentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent can infer it should be used for reading presentation content, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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