Get Export

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

The readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read. The description does add one genuinely useful operational fact, that the download URL is short-lived, which an agent must know to use it promptly. It does not say whether a missing export yields an error or an empty result, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 wasted words; the essential facts (latest artifact, download URL) come first. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full clause, which slightly weakens readability but does not obscure meaning.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple single-parameter read, the remaining gap is the no-export/pending-export case and URL expiry timing, which would materially change how an agent sequences its calls.

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 one parameter, deck_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema itself says nothing about it. The description implies deck_id identifies the deck whose export is wanted, which is marginal added meaning beyond the name, but does not clarify format expectations, error behavior for unknown IDs, or export scope (slides vs. assets).

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 names a specific resource and scope: the latest export artifact for a single deck, plus the fact that a download URL comes back. It does not use an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'fetch') and does not name a sibling, but no sibling in the list deals with exports, so an agent can still distinguish it easily.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other tools, and no mention of what to do if the deck has not been exported or an export is still in progress. The agent must infer both the trigger condition and the fallback behavior.

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