presentation-get-placeholder-setting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that – it doesn't explain what a placeholder setting contains, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the return shape looks like (no output schema). It provides minimal extra 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?

Single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if both id and path are omitted). An agent could call it correctly based on the schema but might lack context for error handling or interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Gets) and resource (placeholder setting assigned on an item). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like presentation-get-layout or presentation-get-rendering, nor does it clarify what a 'placeholder setting' is versus a rendering parameter. The purpose is clear but not distinct enough.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no exclusions. The description only says what it does, not when to choose it over other presentation or authoring get tools.

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