play_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Plays audio file locally') and return value ('playback confirmation'), but lacks details about audio formats supported, playback duration limits, error conditions, or system requirements. It provides basic context but misses important behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the action and return value, then providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, and the 'Use when:' structure is particularly effective.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks important details about parameter requirements, audio format support, and behavioral constraints that would be needed for reliable use by an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'input_file_path', the description provides no parameter information beyond what the schema already shows. It doesn't explain what format the file path should be, what audio formats are supported, or any constraints on the input file. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Plays') and resource ('audio file locally'), and distinguishes it from download operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling audio tools like 'text_to_speech' or 'speech_to_speech' beyond the 'previewing' context.

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 explicit usage context ('Use when: previewing generated audio without downloading'), which clearly indicates when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives for similar audio playback scenarios among siblings.

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