skipnext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key edge case (no-op when nothing is loaded) and the remote-keypress semantics, plus what is returned. It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or whether the skip is queued/instantaneous, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and dense with the essential semantics. The closing enumeration of the player-state snapshot fields is largely redundant given an output schema exists, so it does not fully earn 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 single-optional-parameter remote-key tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, edge case, and invocation semantics adequately. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists, though auth/permission expectations are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning. This is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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 to the next item') and resource (active player's playlist/chapter), and the 'Skip Next' framing plus 'next track/chapter' immediately distinguishes it from the sibling skipprevious and from play/queue. An agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear context ('A remote keypress, not a player command; with nothing loaded it is a no-op'), which tells the agent this is a remote-control style action rather than a command that loads media. It never explicitly names alternatives such as skipprevious or play, so the when-not guidance stops short of full routing guidance.

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