presentation_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists saved presentations with an optional filter, but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence in Spanish, front-loading the core action (list presentations) and the optional filter. There is no extraneous information, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is not fully complete given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It does not explain what the returned list contains, whether it is ordered, how 'owner' filtering works, or how this differs from presentation_list_versions. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to use the tool confidently.

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% for the single 'owner' parameter, with the schema already stating it filters by owner. The tool description merely repeats this ('opcionalmente filtradas por dueño') without adding additional semantic meaning, such as the format of the owner value or how filtering behaves. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb (Lista) and resource (presentaciones guardadas), clearly indicating it lists saved presentations. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool presentation_list_versions, which may also list presentations (or versions), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a usage scenario: list presentations, optionally filtered by owner. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as presentation_list_versions, nor does it mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The optional owner filter is stated, but no further context is given.

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