workiva_get_presentation_slide

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

The description says 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether any side effects occur, what the response structure is (though an output schema exists), or any authentication or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 compact and to the point, with no extraneous words. The Args block is a clear, structured list. However, it is under-specified in terms of behavioral context, but that is captured in other dimensions; for conciseness, it earns a high score for zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks any contextual completeness: no mention of use cases, relationship to presentations (e.g., that slide_id belongs to the specified presentation), or guidance on navigating from a list of slides. The output schema exists, so return details are covered, but the surrounding context of when and how to use this tool is absent. For a simple get-by-ID operation, this is borderline, but the lack of any contextual hints makes it insufficient.

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 adds a small amount of meaning by labeling presentation_id as 'The presentation UUID' and slide_id as 'The slide ID,' which goes slightly beyond the bare schema titles ('Presentation Id', 'Slide Id'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate—it does not clarify how to find these IDs or what format the slide_id takes.

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 states 'Get a single presentation slide' — a clear verb and resource, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from listing all slides. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_get_presentation (which retrieves a presentation, not a slide) or workiva_update_presentation_slide, though these differences are inferable from the resource names.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a slide_id), no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools like workiva_list_presentation_slides or workiva_get_document_section. The description simply states the action without any contextual usage advice.

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