trigger_active_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Retrigger[s]' and 'starts from beginning', implying a mutation that resets playback. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., interrupts current playback), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste—'Retrigger the currently active presentation (starts from beginning)'—front-loading the action and key detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and effect. However, for a mutation tool that likely interacts with a presentation system, it lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., what 'active' means, error handling), making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional assumptions.

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 add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('Retrigger') and target ('the currently active presentation'), with the additional detail 'starts from beginning' clarifying the effect. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trigger_next_slide' or 'trigger_presentation' by specifying it restarts the active presentation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when you want to restart the active presentation from the beginning, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trigger_next_slide' or 'trigger_presentation'), prerequisites (e.g., requires an active presentation), or exclusions. It lacks context for selection among many sibling tools.

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