focus_next_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Focus the next presentation' implies a state-changing action, but it doesn't clarify what 'focus' means (e.g., selecting, activating, or highlighting), whether it requires permissions, its side effects, or the response format. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the core action.

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 complexity (implied state change with no annotations or output schema) and rich sibling context, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'focus' does, how it differs from similar tools, or what the agent should expect. This leaves significant gaps for proper tool invocation in a crowded toolset.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly omits unnecessary parameter details, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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 'Focus the next presentation' restates the tool name 'focus_next_presentation' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('focus') and resource ('presentation'), but lacks differentiation from siblings like 'focus_presentation', 'focus_active_presentation', or 'focus_previous_presentation'. The purpose is vague about what 'focus' entails in this 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'focus_presentation', 'focus_active_presentation', and 'focus_previous_presentation', the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This omission could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.

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