get_presentation_ir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Read' implies a safe read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, failure behavior for missing projects/versions, or rate limits. Thin for a tool with zero 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though brevity here partly reflects omission of useful detail rather than editorial tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% parameter schema coverage and no annotations the description leaves key semantics undocumented. For a lookup tool with two params, it should do more to orient the agent.

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 must compensate, but it only alludes to the version parameter via 'a project version or the latest version'. It adds no format, acceptable values, or meaning for project_id beyond what the parameter names already convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (the canonical Presentation IR), and the scoping (project version or latest). An agent can grasp what it returns, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_artifact, which could plausibly also return IR-like content.

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 on when to use this versus siblings like get_artifact or get_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'version or latest' phrasing only hints at a parameter choice, not at when this tool is the right one.

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