audio_trigger_focused_previous

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('trigger') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no playlist is focused, if it's a read-only or mutating operation, or what the expected outcome is. The term 'trigger' implies an action but lacks detail on effects or constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential action and target.

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 the complexity of media control tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' entails (e.g., playback control, state change), what 'previous item' means in context, or any error conditions. For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary information.

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 ('trigger') and target ('previous item in the focused playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'audio_trigger_focused_next' or 'playlists_trigger_focused_previous', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., 'audio_trigger_focused_next', 'audio_trigger_active_previous', 'playlists_trigger_focused_previous'), the description offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios for this specific tool.

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