raw_next_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is honest about potential side effects. However, the warning is vague—it does not specify which dialogs or state changes might occur, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and every sentence adds value: it names the action, clarifies that it is a static no-argument command, and warns about side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.

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 simple zero-argument navigation action, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does, confirms no arguments, and flags potential side effects. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for this kind of command. It could be slightly more specific about what 'next window' means in Audacity, but this is a minor gap.

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 the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' which is helpful confirmation. Since there are no parameters to document, the schema and description together are sufficient; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 action ('Navigate to the next window') and identifies the resource (window) with a specific verb. It is distinguishable from siblings like raw_prev_window by the direction implied in 'next'. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' phrasing adds helpful context, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 gives context ('Navigate to the next window') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as raw_prev_window or raw_next_frame. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call. The warning to 'inspect the command name first' implies caution but does not provide practical usage direction.

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