transport_play

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does ('Play') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this starts playback from the beginning, resumes from paused state, requires specific permissions, affects other layers, or what happens if the layer is already playing. For a playback tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information with zero wasted words.

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?

For a playback tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Play' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or how this interacts with the complex ecosystem of sibling tools. Given the rich context of transport and trigger operations in the sibling list, more guidance is needed.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'layer' fully documented in the schema with enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Play') and the target ('the specified layer'), with specific layer types enumerated in the schema. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools that focus on getting, focusing, or triggering operations rather than direct playback. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'trigger' tools that might also initiate playback.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'transport_pause', 'transport_skip_forward', 'announcement_trigger_active', and 'audio_trigger_playlist', there's no indication of when this specific 'play' operation is appropriate versus other transport or trigger operations.

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