skipToPrevious

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose whether playback must be active, what happens if you are at the first track, whether this requires authentication, or whether the operation is idempotent. These are meaningful gaps for a control tool with no annotation safety net, though the core behavior is stated.

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, tight sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action and fully sufficient in length.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for the core action. It omits prerequisites (active playback, device availability) and edge-case behavior, leaving the agent to infer operational context. For a simple control tool this is borderline sufficient, but not complete.

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%, and the schema documents deviceId as 'The Spotify device ID to skip on.' The description adds no parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description at least implies a device context via 'current playback queue.' A 4 reflects that the schema fully compensates and the description does not need to repeat it.

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+resource: 'Skip to the previous track in the current Spotify playback queue.' This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling skipToNext beyond the obvious 'next' vs 'previous' wording, which is implicit rather than stated.

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 (skip backward during playback) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like skipToNext, and no prerequisites such as requiring an active playback session. Sibling differentiation is left to the agent to infer.

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