Get Speaker Notes

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

The annotations carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' verb is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: the return format (JSON with notes text), the empty-string fallback, and the presentation default behavior (None = active presentation). It does not cover error cases, but with annotations already stating read-only safety, this is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and includes no filler or redundant 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 tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, both parameters, and the return value shape. It lacks error-handling details, but the readOnlyHint annotation plus the explicit return format make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly. The requiredness inconsistency is a minor gap.

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 explain both parameters itself. It does so clearly: 'presentation' is a name/path with None meaning active, and 'slide_index' is 1-based. However, it marks slide_index as required while the schema declares it optional with a default of null, creating a minor requiredness discrepancy.

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 'Read the speaker notes for a slide,' clearly naming the verb and resource. It is unambiguous about the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_slide_text or set_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 description implies when to use the tool (whenever speaker notes for a slide are needed), but it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of set_speaker_notes for writing, and no exclusions are stated.

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