get_presentation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what information is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects such as whether it requires an open presentation, what happens if no document is specified, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key attributes. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential details.

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 the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'presentation info' entails beyond three attributes, how results are structured, or any dependencies (e.g., needing an open presentation). For a tool in a rich sibling set, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'doc_name' documented as optional with a default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('presentation info') along with specific attributes retrieved (name, slide count, theme). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_slide_info' or 'get_slide_count' by focusing on overall presentation metadata rather than slide-specific details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_slide_info', 'get_slide_count', or 'list_presentations'. The description implies it retrieves presentation-level metadata, but there's no explicit context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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