revisar_presentacion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: results are grouped by severity, it estimates effective shrunk body size, contrast is measured against the actual background, and it also emits a sheet with all slides. It does not mention runtime cost despite scanning the whole deck, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 verb and scope come first, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of checks; every clause names a distinct defect class. The middle sentence is long, but none of it is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: severity-grouped issues plus a slide sheet. It leaves the exact issue record format unspecified, but an agent has enough to call it and interpret the results.

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?

Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 100% and it already explains that the id can come from listar_presentaciones_abiertas, abrir, or crear, or be an exact name. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Revisa todas las diapositivas visibles y reporta problemas por gravedad") and enumerates the exact checks it performs, which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like ver_diapositiva or leer_presentacion.

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?

States an explicit condition for use: "Úsala antes de dar una presentación por terminada." It implies this is a pre-flight audit rather than a per-slide inspection tool, but it does not name a specific alternative for single-slide checks.

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