skipprevious

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the Kodi-specific restart-vs-previous behavior, the remote-keypress (not API command) semantics, and the no-op case when nothing is loaded. It stops short of mentioning permissions, error conditions, or whether the keypress is queued/async.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded with the action and target. However, the trailing sentence dumps the full player-state snapshot field list, which duplicates the output schema and consumes a large share of the text without adding selection-relevant value.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, though it does anyway. For a single-optional-param remote-control tool, the description covers behavior, edge case (no-op), and effect sufficiently; only permission/error context is absent.

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?

There is only one optional parameter ('instance') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about instance targeting or default-instance behavior beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline here.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Press Skip Previous ... on the Kodi remote') and clarifies the exact effect: go to the previous playlist item, or restart the current one. It also distinguishes itself from the play/pause/stop family by stating it is 'a remote keypress, not a player command,' though it never names the closest sibling (skipnext) directly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it is the tool to call when it wants to go backwards, and the no-op condition ('with nothing loaded') is useful. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative selection (e.g., skipnext vs this tool, or nowplaying to inspect state) is offered.

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