next_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It implies a state mutation (playback advances) but does not disclose what happens at the end of the cue list, whether an active cue list is required or an error results, or whether the move is reversible via undo.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and its scope are stated immediately. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential to the sentence is missing.

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 one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits operational context an agent needs — what 'currently playing' means when no list is active, and the result of advancing past the final cue. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the single optional parameter (fadeInTime) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('next cue in the currently playing cue list'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (previous_cue, go_to_cue, start_cue_list), but the phrase 'currently playing cue list' scopes it well enough that an agent can distinguish it from list-management tools.

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 phrase 'currently playing cue list' implies a precondition (a cue list must be running), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose this over go_to_cue or previous_cue, nor what happens if nothing is playing — the alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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