MiniMax MCP JS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states format support and video exclusion but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether playback is blocking/non-blocking, audio output destination, error handling, or performance characteristics. The agent lacks context about how this tool behaves in practice.

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 appropriately brief with three short sentences that each add value: core function, format support, and video exclusion. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs an action (playback), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'play' means operationally (e.g., plays through system speakers, returns audio stream), success/failure conditions, or what happens after invocation. For an action-oriented tool, more behavioral context 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score. No additional syntax, constraints, or usage examples are provided.

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 resource ('an audio file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from video-related siblings by explicitly stating 'Does not support video,' though it doesn't differentiate from other audio tools like text_to_audio or voice_clone.

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 like text_to_audio or music_generation. It mentions format support (WAV and MP3) but doesn't explain use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions beyond the video limitation.

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