kiosk_previous_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'previous scene' means (e.g., navigation history, playlist order), whether it's reversible, if it requires specific kiosk states, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps 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. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Go back'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The simplicity of the tool doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 ('Go back') and target ('to the previous scene'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'kiosk_next_scene' by indicating opposite directionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'kiosk_show_scene' or 'kiosk_reset_defaults'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a scene must be active), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'kiosk_next_scene' or 'kiosk_show_scene' for navigation. Usage is implied through the action but not explicitly contextualized.

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