transport_skip_backward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain what 'skip backward' entails (e.g., does it pause playback, affect other layers, have side effects like resetting timers?). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two well-documented parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's mutation nature (implied by 'skip'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like effects on playback state, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with enums for 'layer'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'specified layer' and 'given time', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already defines, such as time format constraints or layer-specific behaviors.

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 ('skip backward'), target ('in the specified layer'), and parameter ('by a given time'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'transport_skip_forward' or other timeline-related tools, which slightly limits its clarity in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'transport_skip_forward' or other transport tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, effects, or scenarios where skipping backward is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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