goto_previous_window

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the navigation action without disclosing side effects, failure behavior (e.g., when no previous window exists), state changes, or any prerequisites. Minimal transparency.

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 short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so minimal that it omits useful context, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter with zero description coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'previous open window' means, whether a window must be active, what happens if none exists, or how session_id factors in. Significant gaps remain.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the session_id parameter at all. With a parameter that has a default but no required flag, the agent receives no guidance on when to supply it or how it affects behavior, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Navigate') and resource ('main test-client window to the previous open window'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like goto_next_window, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 such as goto_next_window or activate_window. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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