skipToNext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not the consequences: what happens if the queue is empty or at the last track, whether playback state changes, or whether this requires an active device. For a playback-mutating control with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place and the action is immediately clear.

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 one-parameter playback action with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. But with no annotations and an optional deviceId whose default behavior is undocumented, key operational context an agent needs before invoking is missing.

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% for the single deviceId parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds nothing about deviceId behavior, such as what happens when it is omitted (it is optional) — that defaulting behavior is documented nowhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Skip') and resource ('next track in the current Spotify playback queue'), which is unambiguous and inherently distinguishes it from skipToPrevious. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope constraint, but the action is self-evident without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the wording ('in the current Spotify playback queue'), so an agent can infer it applies to active playback control. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active session or device), and no statement about when another tool would be preferable.

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