next

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (skip to next track) and the return value format, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens at end of queue), error conditions, or authentication requirements. It adds some context beyond the minimal purpose but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens at queue end or error conditions. The lack of output schema makes the return description particularly valuable.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides complete parameter documentation: explains the 'name' parameter's purpose (device selection), its optional nature (defaults to current device), and the effect of 'None' value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states the specific action ('Skip to the next track') and resource ('on a Sonos device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'previous' (skip backward) and 'skip' (which might have different semantics). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool (to advance playback) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'previous' or 'play_index'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no track is playing) or compare it to all relevant siblings like 'skip'.

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