raw_prev_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and tells the agent to 'inspect the command name first,' but the warning is generic and does not specify when side effects occur or what state changes to expect.

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 front-loads the command name and purpose in the first sentence. The closing caution about dialog/project-state changes is useful, though the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague and costs a point.

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 a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: direction of focus movement, no-argument nature, and possible side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to call safely, though the 'inspect' instruction remains underspecified.

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, which earns a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, so an agent is not misled into expecting inputs.

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 a specific action and target: 'Move focus backward from toolbars to tracks.' It also identifies the underlying Audacity command as 'PrevFrame' and classifies it as a static no-argument action, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like raw_next_frame or raw_prev_track.

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?

Usage is implied by the action statement: invoke when focus should move backward from toolbars to tracks. However, there is no explicit comparison with sibling navigation tools such as raw_next_frame or raw_prev_track, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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