play_tone

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether the call blocks until the tone finishes, interrupts other sounds, or returns a value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers optional parameters with defaults, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It lacks usage guidance, return/blocking behavior, and how this relates to sibling sound tools, leaving important operational context to the agent's guesswork.

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%, and the description does not mention frequency_hz or duration_ms at all. It also does not explain valid ranges, units beyond what the parameter names already imply, or the meaning of the defaults, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Play a tone on the NXT brick' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'play_sound_file' by indicating a tone rather than a sound file.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as play_sound_file or stop_sound. It states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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