presentar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key side effect that it takes over the user's screen. It does not explain prerequisites such as having a document open, what detener does afterward, or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: first the action set, then the critical screen-occupation warning. No wasted wording and the safety constraint is front-loaded after the purpose.

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 stateful UI-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main selection risk: full-screen impact and user-request requirement. It is largely sufficient, though it could say more about required state and stopping behavior.

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 description enumerates the accion values and implies desde applies when starting; the schema already covers those details, plus documento. With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds some mapping but does not fully compensate for remaining gaps.

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?

Names the specific domain (Keynote presentation mode) and enumerates the exact actions: iniciar, siguiente, anterior, detener. It is clearly distinct from editing siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Provides a strong explicit gating condition: 'úsalo solo si lo pidió' because it occupies the user's screen. It lacks named alternatives for non-presentation viewing, but the when-to-use constraint is clear.

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