nina_sequence_skip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the effect of each skip_type but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., sequence must be running) or potential side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured. It uses a single-line summary followed by a bulleted list for the enum options, front-loading the main action and avoiding unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and what each skip type means. It assumes basic knowledge of a 'running sequence' but is complete within its scope.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with an enum, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool's description fully explains each enum value ('CurrentItems', 'ToEnd', 'ToImaging') with clear, actionable descriptions, adding significant meaning 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 states the tool's function: 'Skip ahead in the running sequence.' It uses a specific verb ('skip') and resource ('running sequence'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nina_sequence_stop or nina_sequence_reset by focusing on advancing within a sequence.

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 context by listing skip types and their brief explanations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nina_sequence_stop. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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