Get Presentation Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful context: it specifies the return structure (JSON with slide index, title text if present, layout), notes that titles are only extracted if a title placeholder exists, and clarifies the default behavior of the presentation parameter (None = active presentation).

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary detail without 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return format and parameter semantics. Minor ambiguity remains about how active slide and slide count are encoded in the JSON, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the one parameter: 'presentation: Presentation name or path (None = active presentation).' This clearly conveys type, meaning, and default value, which is exactly what the AI needs.

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 it retrieves slide count, per-slide titles, and active slide for a presentation. The verb-resource pairing is specific and the output is well-defined, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_slides or get_slide_text.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_slides or get_slide_text. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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