presentation_get_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions or error conditions. The name 'get' suggests safety, but it is not explicit.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It states exactly what is returned with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return fields and clear purpose. It could mention edge cases (e.g., no deployment yet), but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 already fully describes the only parameter 'id' with 'ID del deck.' The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 returns the current deployment state of a presentation, listing specific fields (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like presentation_deploy or presentation_get.

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 when to use this tool (to check deployment status) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No clear guidance on choosing between this and presentation_get or presentation_list_versions.

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