focus_previous_presentation

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

With no annotations and a one-sentence description, the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., whether it auto-plays, changes timelines, or requires a focused presentation) are completely undisclosed. The description fails to add value beyond the tool name.

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 sentence of four words, making it very concise. However, it is slightly underspecified; while efficient, it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'focus' means in this context, how it interacts with sibling tools, or any side effects. A more complete description would clarify the tool's role in the presentation workflow.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter space. The description adds no extra meaning, but the baseline score of 4 is appropriate 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 'Focus the previous presentation' clearly specifies the verb 'focus' and the resource 'previous presentation', strongly distinguishing it from sibling tools like focus_next_presentation and focus_presentation.

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 focus_presentation or focus_next_presentation. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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