play_content_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it reads from the accessibility tree rather than the DOM, and warns that Angular Material controls are not reachable via querySelector. This is exactly the kind of implementation detail that prevents failed invocations. It stops short of stating permissions/rate limits or that the operation is non-mutating.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is returned and then the two operational facts an agent needs. Nothing here is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool carries the essential sequencing prerequisite and implementation caveat. The only meaningful omission is any explanation of package_name, which the schema leaves bare.

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% for the single required parameter, package_name, and the description never mentions it or clarifies its format (e.g. app package identifier). The name is fairly self-explanatory in context, so this is a gap rather than a failure, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (List) and resource (controls/radios/checkboxes of the open declaration) plus what is returned (the state of each). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like play_content_status, although it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering instruction: 'Call play_content_open first.' That tells the agent when this tool is valid. It doesn't state what to do if no declaration is open or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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