status_get_slide

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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add any context about permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. 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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource ('slide status information'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without 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?

Given the complexity implied by the many sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'slide status information' includes (e.g., current slide index, presentation state, timing), how it differs from other status tools, or what the return value looks like. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with no structured output, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate given the schema fully covers this aspect. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly avoids redundant information while focusing on the tool's purpose.

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 current slide status information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('slide status information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like 'get_active_slide_index', 'get_focused_presentation', etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specific 'slide status' means in this context versus other slide-related tools.

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 related to slides, presentations, and status (e.g., 'status_get_audience', 'status_get_stage', 'get_active_slide_index'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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