trigger_previous_slide

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Trigger the previous cue'. It does not explain what happens if at the first slide, whether the presentation must be active, or if the operation has side effects. The lack of detail limits transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It is concise, though it could benefit from additional context to improve completeness without adding significant length.

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 lack of output schema and sibling complexity, the description is too sparse. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., behavior at presentation boundaries) or provide sufficient context about the tool's role among many similar siblings. The agent may not have enough information to use it correctly.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given zero parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('previous cue in the current presentation'), clearly indicating the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_next_slide' or 'trigger_presentation_previous', which have similar names but different contexts.

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_focused_previous' or 'trigger_presentation_previous'. There is no mention of prerequisites, required state, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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