playlists_focus_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a state-changing action ('focus') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what 'focus' means in this context, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what happens if no 'next' playlist exists. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 complexity of a state-changing operation ('focus') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'focus' entails, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it interacts with the system. For a tool that likely alters application state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool without redundancy.

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 'Focus the next playlist' clearly states the action (focus) and resource (playlist) with directional context (next). It distinguishes from siblings like 'playlists_focus_previous' by specifying direction, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other playlist focus tools like 'playlists_focus_active_presentation' or 'audio_focus_next_playlist'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a playlist must exist or be in a specific state), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'playlists_focus' or 'playlists_focus_active_announcement' for context-sensitive selection.

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