focused_timeline_operation

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. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects other presentations, error conditions, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, with no wasted content.

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 performs mutations (timeline operations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'focused presentation', making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'operation' fully documented in the schema via enum and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the effects of each operation or contextual details, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('perform') and resource ('timeline operation on focused presentation'), specifying the operations as play, pause, and rewind. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'presentation_timeline_operation' or 'timeline_operation', which may have similar functions but different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'presentation_timeline_operation' or 'timeline_operation'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a presentation must be focused) or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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