play_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers supported formats and lack of video support, but does not explain how URLs are handled, error scenarios (e.g., file not found), permissions, or return value details beyond 'Text content with the path'.

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 concise with a single informative sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more organized.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, behavior with URLs vs local files, and differentiation from sibling tools like text_to_audio or voice_clone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by listing parameters and stating that is_url is optional with default false. It adds context about supported formats (WAV/MP3) for input_file_path, but does not describe acceptable URL or path formats.

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 explicitly states 'Play an audio file' and specifies supported formats (WAV, MP3). It also notes 'Not supports video', distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_video. The verb and resource are clear.

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 implies usage for playing audio files but does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_audio (for generation) or generate_video (for video). The 'Not supports video' hint is indirect.

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