workiva_list_presentation_slides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether any presentation-level permissions are needed. It lacks explicit behavioral detail, though the operation is inherently safe.

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 extremely concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence and a compact Args section. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema likely handles that. Slightly missing usage guidance prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title 'Presentation Id'. This adequately compensates for the missing schema description.

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 'List slides in a presentation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_presentation_slide (retrieves a single slide) and list_presentation_layouts (lists layouts, not slides).

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 implies usage for listing slides in a presentation but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple tool, the context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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