trigger_focused_presentation

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

The description uses the term 'Trigger' without explaining what it entails (e.g., starting the presentation, transitioning slides). No annotations exist to supplement. The behavioral impact is unclear, and the description fails to disclose side effects or requirements beyond the tool's 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 that states the purpose directly. It is front-loaded but lacks additional context. While concise, it does not provide sufficient value beyond the bare minimum, earning a score of 3.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It fails to explain what 'trigger' means, what happens if no presentation is focused, or what the outcome is. The tool has zero parameters, but the context remains incomplete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 states 'Trigger the currently focused presentation', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates that the tool activates the presentation that is currently in focus. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'trigger_active_presentation' or 'trigger_focused_cue', which have similar purposes.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a presentation to be focused, or when not to use it. Sibling tools with different scopes (e.g., 'trigger_active_presentation') are not contrasted.

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