next_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that playback state advances (a mutation) and that a track name is returned, but says nothing about permission requirements, what happens at the end of a queue or when nothing is playing, or whether the cue is destructive/skippable.

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 that states the action and the return value with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter playback-navigation tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers everything an agent needs in order to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (queue-end behavior) are edge cases rather than prerequisites for invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 and resource: 'Salta a la siguiente canción' (skip to the next song), which is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with the sibling previous_track. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like get_current_track or play, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as play, pause, or previous_track, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. an active playback session). The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and verb.

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