skip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, failure conditions (e.g., no next track), or whether the operation mutates state irreversibly. It also does not mention what the tool returns or if it requires a pre-existing player session.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the core action. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but for conciseness it is appropriately compact.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with one parameter, the description fails to explain the required 'player' parameter, any usage constraints, or behavioral details. An output schema exists but is not visible, so the description does not clarify return values. Overall, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema defines a required 'player' parameter with type string and no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'player' refers to (e.g., player ID, name, or handle). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and format.

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 states a specific verb ('skip') and resource ('next track in the play queue'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like back (previous track), pause, and stop. The action is unambiguous and easily identifiable.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like back or play. It does not mention conditions such as whether a player must be active, what happens at the end of the queue, or any prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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