get_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 it states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), it doesn't explicitly confirm this is non-destructive. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with clear section headers enhances readability.

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-only tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context like authentication requirements, error handling, or when to use versus alternatives. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could provide more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters with clear semantics: 'user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.' and 'presentation_id (str): The ID of the presentation to retrieve.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing complete parameter documentation, including purpose and requirement status for both parameters.

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 as 'Get details about a Google Slides presentation' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Google Slides presentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_doc_content' or 'get_spreadsheet_info' by specifying the presentation resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential presentation-related siblings like 'get_presentation_comment' or 'batch_update_presentation'.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other presentation tools like 'create_presentation', 'batch_update_presentation', or 'get_presentation_comment'. There's also no information about prerequisites, authentication requirements, or access permissions needed.

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