get_active_slide_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but omits details such as whether the index is zero-based, what happens if no active presentation exists, or the return format. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions by an AI agent.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, meeting the conciseness criteria perfectly.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details on return type, edge cases, or potential errors. A slightly more complete description would include what the index represents and any validations, making it truly complete for an AI agent.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters results in a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none, and the baseline applies.

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 purpose: 'Get the index of the current slide within the active presentation'. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('index of current slide'), and the name itself is self-explanatory. Among sibling tools, it uniquely queries the current slide index without performing any triggering or modification, providing clear differentiation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is straightforward for a simple query, but no context is given about prerequisites (e.g., if an active presentation is required) or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'trigger_next_slide' or 'get_presentation' serve different purposes, but the description does not contrast them.

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