trigger_next_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('trigger') but doesn't explain what 'trigger' entails—e.g., whether it advances slides immediately, requires specific permissions, has side effects like pausing media, or what happens if no presentation is active. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified 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, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what 'next cue' entails in the context of sibling tools. For a tool that likely changes presentation state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 ('next cue in the current presentation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_previous_slide' or 'trigger_focused_next', which would require more specific context about what 'current presentation' means versus 'focused' 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'trigger_previous_slide', 'trigger_focused_next', or 'presentation_timeline_operation'. The description implies it operates on the 'current presentation' but doesn't clarify prerequisites like whether a presentation must be active or focused, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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