peek_next

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two useful traits: the operation is read-only and costs exactly one API read (🟢 1 read). This is beyond what the schema or annotations provide, though it does not cover edge cases like an empty queue.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The read-only and single-read note is compact and useful. Every clause earns its place.

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, read-only lookahead tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the essential return content (tracks, durations, total runway) and safety profile. It is slightly light on edge-case behavior and response-format expectations, but no output schema exists and the schema covers response_format.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It does reinforce that max_results controls result size, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (the queue) and the operation (lookahead/peek at next N tracks) and the output (durations and total runway). It is specific enough to distinguish it from general queue tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or contrast itself with get_queue/get_queue_snapshot.

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 gives no guidance on when to use peek_next versus alternatives like get_queue, get_queue_snapshot, or queue_runtime_report. The read-only note implies safe usage, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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