raw_prev_track

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is a meaningful and non-obvious side-effect disclosure for a navigation-like command. The 'static no-argument' phrasing and 'inspect the command name first' caution add further signal about its expected behavior, going beyond a bare restatement of the name.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words: purpose, invocation style, and side-effect caution all appear in logical order. It does not repeat schema content or bloat the entry with generic filler. The slightly ambiguous 'inspect the command name first' still earns its place as an important safety note.

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 parameterless command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is static and argument-free, and that it may have project-wide effects. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'focus' means operationally, what 'inspect the command name first' actually requires, and whether any return value is produced, but these are not critical for a simple no-arg action.

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 is fully covered, so there is nothing additional to document. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' giving the agent immediate confirmation that no inputs are needed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools and adds a useful explicit restatement.

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 verb and resource: 'Focus the previous track.' The 'PrevTrack' label ties it to a distinct Audacity command, clearly distinguishing it from sibling navigation tools like raw_next_track and raw_first_track. There is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 provides only implied usage guidance by characterizing the tool as a 'static no-argument Audacity action.' It does not explicitly state when to choose this command over alternatives, nor does it mention siblings such as raw_next_track. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a clear usage directive, leaving when-to-use largely to the agent's inference.

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