select_presentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect (selecting a new presentation replaces the previous target) and the dynamic tool exposure behavior. It does not mention potential failure modes or whether the previous server connection is terminated, but the core state-changing behavior is clearly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context without redundancy. Every word 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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the essential state-changing behavior. It could additionally mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running, use list_presentations to get names), but it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'name' described as 'Presentation folder name'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how to discover valid names, so it stays at the schema baseline without adding value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Target') with a clear resource ('a presentation') and explains the mechanism (connects to a server, exposes slidev_* tools). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_presentations and create_presentation by focusing on selection.

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 this is a prerequisite for using the dynamically exposed slidev_* tools, which gives clear situational context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving room for more explicit guidance.

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