Get Presentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by explaining that include_speaker_notes reports speaker notes and the shape object ID, and that the shape ID is the only valid target for insertText/deleteText on notes—useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core purpose efficiently, and all additional necessary detail is delegated to the input schema and annotations.

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 simple read-only tool, the description is adequate, especially given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and rich annotations. It could mention that it returns presentation-level metadata rather than slide contents, but that's an enhancement, not a gap, because the schema and output schema cover the specifics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the tool description. The description itself doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's include_speaker_notes parameter has a rich explanation covering both its purpose and its relation to editing operations.

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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a Google Slides presentation'), which distinguishes it from tools for other Google services. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling presentation tools like get_page, which retrieves page-level details, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page or batch_update_presentation. The only usage hint is buried in the include_speaker_notes parameter description, which mentions when to pass True and references batch_update_presentation for writing notes, but that's parameter-level guidance, not tool selection guidance.

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