jump_to_prev_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action ('jump') without explaining whether the navigation wraps around, what happens if no previous cue exists, or the effect on playback state. The minimal description omits critical behavioral details.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters and a likely trivial output schema (not shown), the description is adequate for a simple navigation action. However, it lacks details about expected behavior in edge cases (e.g., no previous cue) and does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (as no parameters are defined). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but since there is nothing to document, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Jump to the previous cue point' uses a specific verb ('Jump') and clearly identifies the target resource ('previous cue point'). Among sibling tools like jump_to_next_cue and jump_to_cue_point, this description uniquely specifies backward navigation, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 jump_to_cue_point or get_cue_points. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., behavior when at the first cue point) or prerequisites (e.g., existence of cue points). This lack of context leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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