get_active_slide_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no presentation is active, whether the index is zero-based or one-based, or what format the return value takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a read operation with no parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. With no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't explain what format the index returns (integer? string? zero-based?), what happens if no presentation is active, or whether this requires specific application state. Given the complexity of the sibling tool ecosystem, more guidance would be helpful.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 specific action ('Get') and target resource ('index of the current slide within the active presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_active_presentation' or 'get_presentation' by focusing specifically on slide index rather than presentation details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools available (like 'get_active_presentation', 'get_focused_presentation', 'get_presentation', 'get_timeline_status'), there's no indication of when this specific slide index retrieval is appropriate versus other presentation-related queries.

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