play_sound

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool plays a melody and accepts an optional clock index, but omits important behavioral details such as volume, error handling (e.g., file not found), side effects, or system requirements.

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 brief (2 sentences in a docstring format) and front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured with separate sections for behavior.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, simple action), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks completeness by not describing output, potential errors, or usage context alongside sibling tools.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in schema), but the tool description explicitly explains both parameters: 'sound' is the file name without extension, and 'clock_index' is an optional 0-based index defaulting to the first clock. This adds significant value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb (play) and resource (RTTTL melody from MELODIES folder), but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'play_rtttl', which likely plays similar melodies. This lack of distinction slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'play_rtttl' or other sound-related tools. No prerequisites or context for use are mentioned.

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