transport_skip_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether skipping is immediate or queued, if it affects playback state, what happens at layer boundaries, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool (implied by 'skip'), this leaves significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'skip forward' entails behaviorally (e.g., does it pause/play, handle boundaries, return confirmation?), leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters are used together ('skip forward in the specified layer by a given time'), which the schema already conveys through individual descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('skip forward') and target ('specified layer'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'transport_skip_backward' by direction, but doesn't differentiate from other timeline/transport operations like 'transport_set_time' or 'timeline_operation' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the layer must be playing), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'transport_set_time' (absolute positioning) or 'timeline_operation' (which might handle skipping).

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