presentation_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default head behavior, historical version support, and the expected output structure (html field plus metadata), plus the crucial rendering instruction. It does not discuss side effects, but this is a read-only retrieval tool and the description appropriately covers its behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place: the first covers function and versioning, the second gives a critical post-call display instruction. No 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers default behavior, version selection, and what to do with the returned data. The only minor gap is that metadata fields are not enumerated, but the html rendering instruction is the most important operational detail.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'version' accepts a commit SHA and that omitting it returns HEAD, and by introducing the result's html field. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns the HTML and metadata of a presentation, which is a specific verb+resource combination. The version behavior (default HEAD vs historical SHA) distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_get_deployment and presentation_list_versions.

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 provides clear context on how the version parameter affects the result and instructs the agent to display the html field as an Artifact rather than raw text. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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