get_presentation_url

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.