list_presentation_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It indicates a read-style operation but does not mention whether authentication via user_google_email is required, whether replies are included, whether there are pagination limits, or whether this returns only top-level comments. 'All comments' is broad and underspecified.

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 no redundant or verbose wording. It is concise, though it achieves brevity by sacrificing useful behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary in the description. The core purpose and obvious parameter names make basic invocation plausible, but the lack of auth context, parameter semantics, and differentiation from the management tool leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, and the description adds no detail about either parameter. 'presentation_id' and 'user_google_email' are not explained beyond their names, so an agent has no guidance on formats, where to find the ID, or why the email is required.

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 states a clear action ('List'), a specific resource ('comments'), and a scope ('from a Google Presentation'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_document_comments and list_spreadsheet_comments by resource type, even without naming them.

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 verb 'List' implies read-only usage, and the resource type implies this tool is for presentation comments rather than document or spreadsheet comments. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus manage_presentation_comment or how it relates to other comment-list tools.

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