export_presentation_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the optional side effect of writing files when output_dir is provided, and clarifies the default behavior is returning source. However, it leaves the effect of theme/highlight_style on the output unclear, which slightly reduces transparency.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, output_dir behavior, and a parameter cross-reference. It is front-loaded, with no fluff or redundant information.

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 description covers the core purpose and one side effect, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits the required presentation_id parameter and provides vague parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains output_dir's write behavior well, but theme/highlight_style are only cross-referenced to compile_presentation, and presentation_id is not mentioned at all. The required parameter and theme semantics are left ambiguous.

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 pandoc source (slides Markdown + config.yml) for a presentation. The verb 'Return' and resource specification distinguish it from siblings like compile_presentation and import_presentation_source.

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 use when the raw source is needed, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives. The phrase 'this presentation compiles from' hints at the relationship, but no exclusions or explicit alternatives are given.

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