netease_next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. However, the description says nothing about what happens at the end of the queue, whether playback state changes on the server, or any error conditions — meaningful gaps for a state-mutating playback command.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it omits behavior and parameter guidance that should be present.

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 one-parameter playback control with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves the sole parameter entirely unexplained and gives no state or failure context. It is the minimum needed to guess intent, not enough to call reliably.

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 one required parameter (requestId) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent has no idea whether it is an idempotency key, a session id, or a tracing token, nor any format guidance beyond length bounds.

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 phrase '播放队列下一首' names a specific action (skip to next) on a specific resource (the playback queue), and it reads clearly against siblings like netease_previous and netease_play. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the semantics are unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus netease_play, netease_previous, or netease_queue, and no mention of preconditions such as an active playback session or queue having a following track. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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