Play media

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

Annotations are all false, offering little behavioral signal. The description discloses the primary action (start playback) and optional adjustments, but omits details like what happens if media is already playing, whether it restarts, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited context beyond the basic operation.

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 14-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Start normal playback') and then lists optional modifiers. No filler or repetition; each word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters but the description does not clarify whether mediaId and mediaName are mutually exclusive alternatives or both needed, nor what happens if neither is provided. It also doesn't mention the output schema, but that exists separately. These gaps make it less complete than ideal for an agent to call 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?

Schema covers 50% of parameters (mediaId and mediaName have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining startMs ('seek to startMs before playing') and speedPercent ('change playback speed'), which are otherwise undocumented. This adds meaningful context for the ambiguous parameters, though units for speedPercent are not explicitly stated.

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 action ('Start normal playback') with clear optional modifiers (speed and seek). It distinguishes from siblings like media_seek and media_speed_set by combining them, and from media_play_range by implying full playback. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 implies when to use the tool (starting playback with optional speed/seek) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use media_seek for seeking only' or 'use media_play_range for a range'. Guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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