Get Presentation Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add scope. It does so by describing the tool as cheap, deck-level, and explicitly noting what it is not: element enumeration, rendering, validation, or PDF export. The presence of an output schema covers the need to describe return format.

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?

Four sentences carry a dense, useful payload with no filler. The fact inventory is front-loaded, and the routing guidance for alternatives and the assembly-export pack is compressed into clear, actionable clauses.

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 readOnly annotations, output schema, and one obvious required parameter, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and where to go for related functionality. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation 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 single required file_path parameter is self-evident from its name, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains path format, file type expectations, or how to reference the presentation. The parameter's meaning is adequately implied by the tool's purpose, though the description could have been more explicit.

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 opens with 'Deck-level facts in one call' and enumerates concrete contents: slide count and size, slide order with durable ids and titles, masters and layouts, sections, and notes presence. This clearly names the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presentation_view and list_elements.

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?

Explicitly says this is 'the cheap first look before get_presentation_view' and instructs to 'use list_elements' when enumerating one kind of element. It also redirects rendering, validation, and PDF export to the assembly-export pack, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be used.

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