Get Slide Text

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it specifies the return shape as JSON with title and body strings in shape order, and clarifies the active-presentation fallback for the presentation parameter. It does not discuss error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the read-only context.

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 tight and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary followed by short Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 text extraction tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: parameters, defaults, requiredness, and return format. Slight gaps around error handling and precise meaning of 'shape order' exist, but they are not significant for successful invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It fully compensates by explaining presentation as a name or path with None meaning the active presentation, and by marking slide_index as a 1-based required index. This is essential operational detail absent from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read all text on a slide,' and precisely scopes what counts as text ('title plus every other text-bearing shape'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_shapes or get_speaker_notes.

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 intended use case is clear from the description, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives or states when NOT to use it. Sibling names such as list_shapes and get_speaker_notes imply the distinction, but the description doesn't directly guide routing.

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