foundry_previous_round

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already indicates this is a mutating operation. The description merely restates the action ('Return to previous encounter round') without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or potential failure modes. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the annotation.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, and no mention of preconditions or side effects, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operational context. The agent is left guessing about required encounter state and return format.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, but the 'encounter' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate by clarifying what 'encounter' refers to or how the parameters influence the operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return to') and clear resource ('previous encounter round'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool foundry_next_round by specifying 'previous' instead of 'next'.

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 implies usage during an active encounter but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like foundry_previous_turn or foundry_next_round. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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