get_focused_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what 'currently focused presentation' means in this context, whether it returns metadata or content, error conditions, or any performance characteristics. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could benefit from clarifying what 'focused' means in this context and what data is returned. It's adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It earns a 4 because it doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters while maintaining clarity about the operation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('currently focused presentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_presentation' or 'get_presentation', leaving some ambiguity about what distinguishes a 'focused' presentation from an 'active' one.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active_presentation' or 'get_presentation'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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