previous_cue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a state-changing playback action. It does not disclose behavior at the first cue (no-op vs. error), whether the transition is crossfaded or immediate, or that it mutates playback position — leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the action and its scope are communicated immediately.

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 navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the core action is covered, but edge cases (behaving at the first cue of the list, interactions with a stopped list, and the fadeInTime override's effect on the transition) are missing, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional fadeInTime parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description is not obliged to restate it. It adds no extra meaning about the fade override, so the baseline 3 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 specific verb+resource ('Go back to the previous cue') and scopes it to the 'currently playing cue list', which clearly separates it from navigation siblings like next_cue and go_to_cue. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Use is only implied: the phrase 'currently playing cue list' hints that a list must be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of what happens if no cue list is playing. The agent must infer the precondition.

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