get_presentation_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as returning facts and being a 'cheap first look,' implying a fast, non-mutating read. It also clarifies that rendering, validation, and PDF export are not here but require the assembly-export pack, which prevents false expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key facts and use case, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either scoping or routing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description provides enough to know when to call it and what it returns at a high level. The only gap is the undocumented file_path parameter, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains file_path semantics, format, or constraints. The single parameter is inferable from context, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('get') and resource ('presentation') and enumerates the exact deck-level facts returned: slide count/size, slide order with ids/titles, masters/layouts, sections, and notes presence. It also distinguishes itself from get_presentation_view, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear context: 'the cheap first look before get_presentation_view' tells the agent when to use this tool instead of the view tool. It doesn't explicitly list exclusion cases or all alternative tools, but the primary routing decision is well covered.

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