raw_prev_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state', which is valuable transparency for a navigation action. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of dialog or state change, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'PrevWindow:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but overall the description earns its place without excessive length.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks (dialogs, state changes) and confirms it is a static Audacity action. It is reasonably complete, though 'previous window' could be clearer about what exactly constitutes a window and how navigation behaves.

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 empty, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which adds meaningful confirmation beyond the empty schema. No parameter details are needed.

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 the action ('Navigate to the previous window') with a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the direction. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like raw_next_window by the explicit 'previous' scope, though it does not directly name any sibling. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' note adds useful specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_next_window or frame-navigation tools. The warning to 'inspect the command name first' is a safety note, not usage guidance, and provides no decision criteria for selecting this tool.

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