presentation_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default HEAD behavior, historical version retrieval, and return content (HTML and metadata), which is useful. However, it does not specify what 'metadata' includes, error behavior for invalid IDs/SHAs, or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the version-specific behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (two params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the primary purpose, return type, and version selection behavior. It could be more complete by detailing the metadata structure or error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% because both id and version have descriptions in the input schema. The description largely repeats the version param semantics already present in the schema ('SHA', 'HEAD'), adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Devuelve') and a clear resource ('el HTML y la metadata de una presentación'), while also distinguishing version behavior (HEAD vs a historical SHA). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like presentation_list_versions, which lists versions, and presentation_get_deployment, which fetches deployment info.

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 states when to use the version parameter: omit it for the current HEAD, or provide a SHA for a historical version. It gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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