sonic_play_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Run'. It does not explain whether the call blocks, how it handles output, what collect_ms does, or what side effects occur in the runtime.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics, usage comparisons, and behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.

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?

The description provides no explanation for collect_ms or buffer_name, and even path is only implicitly referenced through 'a local Sonic Pi .rb file'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 ('Run') and the target ('a local Sonic Pi .rb file'), specifying the resource and context ('managed runtime'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sonic_run_code by emphasizing a local file path rather than inline code.

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 the tool is for executing local .rb files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as sonic_run_code or sonic_record_file. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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