trigger_previous_slide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires a presentation to be active, what happens if no previous cue exists, whether it's destructive (likely not, but unspecified), or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with presentation state.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 operating in a complex presentation system with many siblings, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, dependencies (e.g., requires an active presentation), and output expectations, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it implies the tool operates on the current presentation contextually, which is useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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 ('previous cue in the current presentation'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trigger_next_slide' by specifying direction, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'trigger_focused_previous' or 'trigger_presentation_previous' which may have similar functions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trigger_previous_slide', 'trigger_focused_previous', or 'trigger_presentation_previous' is provided. The description implies usage in a presentation context but lacks context about prerequisites or when-not scenarios.

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