raw_next_frame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action may open a dialog or change project state and advises caution by inspecting the command name first—transparent about potential side effects without over-specifying.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by a brief caution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema raw action, the description covers what it does and warns of side effects. It does not detail the exact dialog or state changes, but for a simple navigation command this is sufficient and complete enough for an agent to call it safely.

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 schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is trivially 100%. The description explicitly confirms 'no-argument', reinforcing the schema. This satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 tool moves focus forward from toolbars to tracks, providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling raw_prev_frame and other navigation tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description notes it is a static no-argument action and advises inspecting the command name first, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like raw_prev_frame or state when to choose this over other focus/navigation commands. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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