play_content_answer

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral quirk: Material input offset causing center clicks to fail, and that the tool tries multiple offsets and only reports success via accessibility tree confirmation. This is exactly the kind of implementation detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential behavioral context, then parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps: 'package_name' and 'save_after' are unexplained, and the prerequisite of an open declaration (and likely an active browser session) is only implied.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It defines 'option' (pt-BR label, e.g. 'Não') and 'nth' (occurrence index for duplicates) well, but omits 'package_name' and especially 'save_after', leaving half the parameters without added meaning.

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: select an option by its text in the open declaration and confirm it took effect. It distinguishes from siblings like play_content_options (list) and play_content_save (save) by focusing on selection and verification, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Implies usage context ('open declaration') but does not explicitly state prerequisites such as calling play_content_open first, nor when to prefer this over play_content_options or play_content_save. The parameter guidance helps but usage guidance remains implicit.

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