trigger_focused_cue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'trigger' but doesn't clarify what triggering entails (e.g., does it start playback, advance a timeline, or activate a media cue?), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of triggering operations in a presentation system, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'trigger' means behaviorally, what happens on success/failure, or how it interacts with the focused presentation state, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 'index' fully documented in the schema as 'The index of the cue to trigger (0-based)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Trigger') and target ('a specific cue by index in the focused presentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'announcement_trigger_cue' or 'trigger_focused_presentation', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools involving triggering cues, presentations, and announcements, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions from similar tools like 'announcement_trigger_cue' or 'trigger_focused_presentation'.

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