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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool serves the presentation over HTTP and returns a URL, and explains slide-to-<section> mapping. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, persistence) or permissions, though as a create tool the behavior is relatively self-evident.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose and return value. No wasted words, and the markdown detail is presented efficiently.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and an output schema, the description captures the core workflow: slides in, URL out. It explains the two most important semantic choices (slide content format and markdown). Since the schema fully documents parameters and output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for tool selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that each slide string becomes a <section> element and that setting format to 'markdown' enables markdown parsing. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a reveal.js presentation from an array of slides and serve it over HTTP', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list, delete, info tools) by focusing on creation and serving.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the default behavior (raw HTML) and how to switch to markdown via the 'format' parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are obviously different (list/get/delete), so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates the destructive nature (deletion) and notes the return behavior (boolean indicating deletion). However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 primary action and also includes the return value. There is no fluff 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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and return semantics. The mention of 'whether anything was deleted' clarifies idempotent behavior. It lacks details on authorization or related effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately 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?

The input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'Presentation id.' The description says 'by id,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Delete a presentation by id') and distinguishes it from siblings like create_presentation and list_presentations. It also mentions the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (when you want to delete a presentation) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. The name and context make the primary use case obvious, but no additional direction is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context that the URL is 'browser-viewable' and that the presentation must exist, but does not mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits. This is partially transparent but leaves 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 a single sentence of 11 words, immediately stating the action and object with zero filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and an output schema (per context signals), and the description covers the essential context: it fetches a URL for an existing presentation by ID. It does not detail what happens on invalid IDs or response structure, but the output schema likely handles return shape, making it sufficiently complete for a simple getter.

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 input schema fully describes the single required parameter 'id' with the description 'Presentation id', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'by id', so the baseline of 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 'Get' and identifies the resource as the browser-viewable URL of an existing presentation. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_presentations and create_presentation by focusing on retrieving a URL for a specific presentation ID.

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 the tool should be used when you have an existing presentation ID and need its browser-viewable URL. It gives clear context ('existing presentation by id') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the enumerated output fields leave little ambiguity about what the tool does. For a parameterless info getter, no destructive or complex side effects are suggested.

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 sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and uses only necessary words. Every word contributes meaning: 'Get', 'revealjs-mcp server info', and the three specific data fields.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, an output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It specifies exactly what information the agent will receive—version, base URL, and data directory—so no further context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates for the absence of parameters by explaining what data the tool returns, providing all the context an agent needs.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource, 'revealjs-mcp server info', and enumerates the exact data returned: reveal.js version, base URL, and data directory. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list themes, transitions, or presentations.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when the agent needs server-level metadata such as the reveal.js version or base URL. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the resource scope makes it obvious that this is the dedicated information tool, and no competing sibling serves the same purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope 'created by this server' clarifies the data included. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or response size constraints.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant words.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. It mentions the key output aspect (URLs). The absence of explicit alternative guidance is minor for a simple list 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. According to rubric, baseline 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter info but does not need to.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'presentations' and adds scope 'created by this server' and output detail 'with their URLs.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_themes, list_transitions) which target different resources.

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 usage for retrieving all presentations on the server, but does not explicitly contrast with get_presentation_url for single presentations or note any exclusions. It is not misleading, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or any additional behavioral details such as ordering or filtering behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the complete purpose without excess. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's trivial complexity (no parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does and why it exists. No additional details are needed for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's reference to the `theme` argument clarifies that the output is directly relevant to that parameter, adding context beyond the empty schema.

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 specifies the exact action ('List') and resource ('bundled reveal.js themes'), plus the purpose (usable as the `theme` argument), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_transitions or list_presentations.

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 usage as a lookup for valid `theme` values but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It gives no comparison to list_transitions or list_presentations, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It accurately conveys a simple read-only enumeration operation, with no hidden side effects or conditions to disclose. The wording 'List' inherently communicates the read-only nature, though it does not explicitly state that it returns a fixed/static set.

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, compact sentence with 13 words, front-loaded with the action ('List') and the object ('reveal.js slide transition styles'). 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete: it names the exact set of items listed and their intended use. The output schema handles return structure, so no further detail is required.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by stating the output is 'usable as the `transition` argument,' which clarifies the purpose and relationship to other tools, exceeding the minimum for a zero-parameter tool.

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 lists a specific resource: 'reveal.js slide transition styles,' and explains their usage as the `transition` argument. This verb-object-resource structure is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like list_themes or list_presentations.

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 purpose makes usage self-evident: use this tool when you need the valid transition values. However, it does not explicitly present alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is strong enough to justify a 4.

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