previous

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing. It does not say what happens at the start of a queue (restart current track vs. seek to prior track), whether active playback is required, or whether a device must be selected.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but so terse that it lacks any of the routing or behavioral detail a playback control tool typically benefits from.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema playback command, the description leaves key edge cases unexplained (queue boundaries, required playback/device state) and offers no sibling disambiguation. It is barely enough to identify the tool, not enough to call it confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the target of the action. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Go to the previous track'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling 'skip' (likely next track), which an agent must infer from name alone.

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 versus 'skip', 'play', 'pause', or 'seek', which are adjacent playback controls in the sibling list. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'previous track'.

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