listar_presentaciones_abiertas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely operational context: editable=false means the deck belongs to the user and is read-only, which tells the agent it cannot mutate that presentation. It does not cover ordering of results or what happens when nothing is open.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the returned fields following. The parenthetical about editable=false is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so field by field, including the non-obvious editable flag. Missing only edge cases such as empty results and ordering for a simple zero-argument read tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description usefully interprets one of the returned attributes (editable) rather than any input, which is the best available use of the space.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista las presentaciones abiertas en Keynote') and then enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like leer_presentacion or abrir, but never names them explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 natural use case (discover what is currently open before calling leer_presentacion or abrir) is implied by the description and the sibling set, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named.

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