skip_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core behavior and the device selection logic, but does not disclose what happens if no active device exists, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes the optional parameter nuance without excess. Perfectly concise 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It explains the main action and device targeting. Missing details like error behavior when no device is active are minor given the low complexity and presence of an output schema that may document returns.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains 'optional device ID' and ties it to the behavior: if not provided, the active device is used. This fully clarifies the single parameter's role, though it does not detail ID formats or lookup methods.

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 clearly states the action ('Skip to the next track') and the target resource ('active Spotify device or an optional device ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'skip_backwards' by specifying forward direction, and from play/pause by the skip action.

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 clear context: it skips forward on the active device or a specified device. It implies when to use this tool (when advancing to the next track is desired) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple media control operation.

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