trigger_focused_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'trigger' implies an action that changes state, the description doesn't explain what 'trigger' actually does (e.g., starts playback, advances slides, activates a cue), what permissions might be required, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with potential side effects.

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 states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially state-changing operation ('trigger'), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' means operationally, what happens after triggering, or how this differs from similar triggering tools in the sibling list. The context signals show complexity (many sibling tools) that the description doesn't address.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the empty input schema is self-explanatory for a parameterless tool.

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 ('currently focused presentation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'trigger_active_presentation' or 'trigger_focused_next', which appear to serve similar triggering functions in the same presentation 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also trigger presentations (e.g., 'trigger_active_presentation', 'trigger_focused_next', 'trigger_presentation'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those options.

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