hedgedoc_slide_url

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a URL and explains what slide notes are, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as errors for non-slide notes, whether the note must exist, or any validation. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes a brief explanatory note on slides and a clear parameter bullet, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple, with one required parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description explains the tool's purpose, the parameter, and the return value ('Returns the slide URL'), which is sufficient for a straightforward read operation. It lacks explicit error-handling details, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explicitly explaining the single parameter: 'note_id: The note ID or alias (the slug from the URL)'. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it could be slightly more detailed about accepted formats.

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 tool's function: 'Get the slide presentation URL of a HedgeDoc note.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explains the slide-rendering context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hedgedoc_publish_url.

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 for when to use the tool (for notes designed as slides, useful for meetings), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies usage rather than naming alternatives, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance of a 5.

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