presentation-get-rendering-parameter

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the operation itself — no note on return shape, what happens when the parameter does not exist, or how id/path addressing affects the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though at this brevity it also forgoes the scoping detail that a tool with id/path duality might benefit from.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description is minimally adequate — the schema fills in all parameters and the annotation covers safety. However, it gives no help with the non-trivial id-vs-path addressing model or finalLayout semantics, so it is only just sufficient.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (id vs path addressing, database, language, finalLayout, renderingUniqueId) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the 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?

The description names a specific verb (gets) and a specific resource (rendering parameter for a rendering placed on an item), so an agent can tell it retrieves a parameter value rather than the rendering itself. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the close sibling presentation-get-rendering, leaving that distinction to be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as presentation-get-rendering or presentation-list-renderings. The agent must infer the correct call from the name alone.

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