get_presentation_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the default to the frontmost presentation and lists returned fields, but does not clarify error handling (e.g., if no presentation is open) or side effects. For a read-only info tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, each crucial: first enumerates the output, second explains default behavior. No fluff or redundancy. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, read-only), the description is largely complete. It could mention that the name must match exactly or that the file is opened automatically, but these are minor omissions. Overall, it provides sufficient context for usage.

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% (the parameter 'name' is described as 'Name of the presentation. If omitted, uses the frontmost document.'). The tool description repeats the default behavior but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's action: 'Returns slide count, theme name, dimensions, and file path for a presentation.' It specifies the resource (presentation) and the type of information retrieved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that get specific subsets (e.g., get_slide_count, get_presenter_notes).

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 usage for obtaining multiple presentation properties but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_full_presentation_content or get_slide_count. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving room for confusion among many similar get* tools.

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