List Presentations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, without mentioning pagination (continuation parameter), sorting behavior, query filtering, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no verbosity, which is efficient. However, it is overly terse given the tool's five parameters, omitting critical usage details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, earning a mid-range score.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description is minimal. It fails to explain return format, pagination via continuation token, or how query and sortBy behave. The context is far too thin for an agent to fully understand and correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.

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 indirectly explains the folderId parameter by mentioning 'defaulting to root', but it does not clarify limit, query, sortBy, or continuation. These parameters remain underspecified, requiring the agent to guess their meaning.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('Canva presentations') with an added scope ('in a folder, defaulting to root'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_brand_templates (which lists brand templates) and search_assets (which searches assets broadly).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_assets or list_brand_templates. There is no mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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