presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-path

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 implies a read-only operation ('gets'), but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the item or placeholder setting does not exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'itemPath' is required, which is already covered in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps, as none exist.

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 states the tool 'gets placeholder setting assigned on the item specified by path,' which clearly indicates a read operation targeting placeholder settings. However, it lacks specificity about what 'placeholder setting' entails (e.g., configuration, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-id' or other get operations, making it vague in context.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an item path, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-get-placeholder-setting-by-id' or other presentation-related get operations, leaving usage entirely implied from the name alone.

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