skip_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (skipping) but does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., active device or playback), failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a state-changing action.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description is thin. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., active playback), error behavior when there is no next track, or the meaning of 'context'. The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical operational details unstated, making an agent uncertain about when and how it can be invoked successfully.

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% – the device_id parameter is described as 'Target device ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Skip to the next track') and the resource ('queue or context'). It is clear and distinguishable from siblings like skip_previous. The term 'context' is slightly vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 (advance playback) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives or conditions, such as needing an active playback session or failing when at the end of the queue. For a straightforward control this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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