get_deck_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'No API call' is genuinely useful behavioral context: it signals a local/persisted read with no external side effects. However, it stops short of stating side effects, permissions, or whether it mutates state, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned content before the 'No API call' qualifier. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed context.

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?

Low-complexity read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description usefully pre-announces the return fields (stage, paths, pending slides), which partly substitutes for the missing output schema, but it does not explain the presentation identifier or expected return shape fully.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only restates 'for a presentation' while the single parameter is literally named 'presentation'. The parameter is self-descriptive, so the marginal loss is small, but the description adds no format or identifier detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the concrete payload (persisted stage, paths, pending slides) scoped to a presentation. This clearly reads as the status-inspection tool among siblings that otherwise initialize, submit, approve, or generate. It lacks an explicit sibling call-out but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'No API call' hints at when this is appropriate (cheap local/persisted reads), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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