next_track

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

The description states the concrete effect (skipping to the next track), and annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent action. It adds no additional behavioral caveats, such as behavior at the end of a queue or whether playback must be active.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key verb and object, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description conveys the core operation, but it omits contextual details such as whether an active media session is required, what happens at the end of the playlist, or whether this controls system media or a specific app. These gaps could matter for an agent deciding whether this tool is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing meaningful to add beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Skip') and resource ('next media track'), making the tool's operation immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like previous_track and seek_media by naming the exact action.

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 intended use is implied: use when advancing to the next media track. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites like active playback, or compare with alternatives such as previous_track or seek_media.

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