get_presentation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It clarifies that this is a read operation (via 'Return') and provides specific details about the returned data, including slide previews and artifact existence. This goes beyond a generic description.

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 core action ('Return') and packs specific, useful details without wasted words. Every component earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers the essential aspects of the response (metadata, slide list, artifacts). It does not mention error handling or pagination, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 single parameter 'presentation_id' is not described in the schema and the description does not explicitly reference it. However, the parameter's purpose is self-evident from the tool name and context, so the description adds minimal but sufficient meaning for this trivial case.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: a presentation's metadata, ordered slide list, and compiled artifacts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slide (single slide) and list_presentations (list of 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 provides clear context by detailing exactly what the tool returns, allowing an agent to infer when to use it (e.g., when a full presentation overview is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as 'use get_slide for a single slide'.

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