get_active_presentation

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 a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'active' means contextually. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Get the currently active presentation'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states the purpose concisely but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a read operation in a complex sibling environment, more guidance would enhance completeness, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage with no parameters, earning a score above the minimum.

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 'Get the currently active presentation' clearly states the action (get) and resource (active presentation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_presentation' (general) and 'get_focused_presentation' (focused vs active), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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_focused_presentation' or 'get_presentation'. The description implies usage for retrieving the active presentation, but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria among similar tools.

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