get_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like what 'details' include, whether authentication is required, error handling for invalid UUIDs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get details of a specific presentation').

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or any behavioral constraints. While the tool appears simple, the lack of output information and behavioral context creates uncertainty for proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'presentationUuid' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by UUID' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('presentation by UUID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_active_presentation' or 'get_focused_presentation' that also retrieve presentation information, which prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve presentation data (e.g., 'get_active_presentation', 'get_focused_presentation', 'library_get'), there's no indication of when this specific UUID-based lookup is appropriate versus other retrieval methods.

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