get_presentation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this as a read-only 'facts' call. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a 'cheap first look', it returns deck-level metadata including notes presence, and it explicitly excludes rendering, validation, and PDF export. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the tool's purpose first, then lists contents, then provides routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the line breaks aid scanning.

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 output schema exists and the operation is read-only, the description covers the essential invocation context: what facts are returned, when to prefer this over siblings, and where related capabilities live. No critical information for selecting or calling this tool is missing.

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 has one parameter, file_path, with no description, and the description does not clarify its expected format, bounds, or access semantics. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a score of 1, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated and did not.

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 and resource: 'Deck-level facts in one call' about a presentation, and enumerates exactly what is returned. It also draws clear lines against sibling tools like get_presentation_view and list_elements, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'The cheap first look before get_presentation_view.' It also names alternatives and exclusions: use list_elements for enumerating one kind of element, and use the assembly-export pack for rendering, validation, and PDF export.

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