get_presentation_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses stable and durable anchor semantics, the table cell coordinate convention (1-based in this tool, 0-based in table tools), the note rendering as quoted blocks, and the meaning of each detail level including geometry.

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 dense but every clause delivers useful information: output format, anchor stability, coordinate conventions, scope options, detail levels, and the enable_tools dependency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with clear labels for parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the returned structure, how to consume anchors downstream, coordinate system caveats, and optional parameters. The presence of an output schema covers raw return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description explains valid values for scope (None, index, object, list) and detail ('outline', 'text', 'full'). file_path is not explicitly described, though its meaning is obvious from the name and required status. This compensates well for the sparse 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 clearly identifies the tool as producing an anchored markdown projection of a presentation, with specific structural elements: slide headers, shape blocks, tables, and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text, get_slide_info, and list_elements, which do not return this anchor-based view.

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 explains how to use the output (feed anchors to apply_edits), how to control scope and detail, and when to enable graphics tools. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_text or get_slide_info, but the workflow and scope options provide practical usage context.

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