list_presentations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists every presentation currently held in memory, which indicates a read-only operation and limits scope to in-memory objects. While it doesn't mention edge cases or side effects, the operation is simple and the phrase 'currently held in memory' adds useful behavioral context beyond a generic 'list presentations'.

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 purpose. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope, making it complete 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's phrase 'every presentation' confirms there is no filtering or parameters, aligning with the schema. There is no additional parameter meaning needed.

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 every presentation currently held in memory, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('presentations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presentation (which retrieves a single presentation) and create_presentation (which creates one). The scope is explicit and 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 for enumerating all in-memory presentations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_presentation. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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