get_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly signals a read-only lookup ('Get details') and states the return shape (string with title, slides count, metadata), but it omits auth prerequisites (the user_google_email parameter implies an authenticated account, and start_google_auth exists as a sibling) and failure behavior for invalid or inaccessible presentation IDs.

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 compact three-part docstring — summary, Args, Returns — with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and no filler. Every line earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema present and both params documented, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gaps — auth-state requirements and error behavior — are minor for a retrieval tool of this simplicity.

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 Args docstring documents both parameters with type and required markers, fully compensating for the schema's silence. The prose is largely a restatement of the names ('user's Google email address', 'ID of the presentation to retrieve'), so it adds modest meaning beyond what the parameter names already convey.

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?

'Get details about a Google Slides presentation' names a specific verb and resource, and the Returns clause enumerates exactly what is fetched (title, slides count, metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from presentation-adjacent siblings like get_page and get_page_thumbnail, which target page-level detail.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. With presentation-adjacent siblings such as get_page, get_page_thumbnail, and list_presentation_comments, an agent receives no guidance for choosing among them; usage is only vaguely implied by the verb 'Get'.

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