wps_wpp_get_presentation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool is a read-only operation (get info) and lists the returned fields (name, slide count), providing adequate transparency for a simple query tool.

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?

Single sentence, perfectly concise. States verb, resource, and outputs without wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, description is nearly complete. It specifies purpose and outputs. Could optionally mention the data format (string/integer), but not required for a simple info tool. No output schema is needed based on this tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and description coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying the exact info returned (name and slide count), which is not in the schema. With no parameters, this is fully appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states this tool retrieves presentation info (name and slide count). It differentiates from siblings like wps_wpp_get_current_slide, which focuses on the current slide, and wps_wpp_read_slide, which reads slide content.

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?

Implied usage: get basic metadata about the active presentation. No explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings (e.g., vs wps_wpp_probe for richer info). No exclusions provided.

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