get_presentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns a string with title, slides count, and metadata, but does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is informative, and the format is easy to parse. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the basic operation but lacks contextual depth. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, how errors surface, or the full scope of metadata returned. The presence of an output schema offsets some return-detail needs, but usage guidance and behavioral context are thin.

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 does by explaining both parameters: 'user_google_email' as the user's Google email address and 'presentation_id' as the ID of the presentation. This adds meaning beyond bare parameter names, though it does not specify formats or sources.

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 'Get details about a Google Slides presentation' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_page and read_presentation_comments by focusing on overall presentation details, not pages or comments.

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 a read-only use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description.

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