控制网易云播放

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

Annotations already characterize this as a non-readonly, non-destructive mutating operation. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it targets the official Mac client and requires accessibility permissions, which informs likely failure modes. It does not detail toggle behavior or no-op conditions, but the core side effect is transparent.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and target, then states the critical permission requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple single-parameter control tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the target client, the available actions, and the key prerequisite. It could add a note about behavior when the client is not running, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the single 'action' parameter. It compensates by listing the three actions in Chinese (播放/暂停、上一首或下一首), which maps directly to the enum values play_pause, previous, and next. For a self-explanatory enum, this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb (控制/control) and resource (官方 Mac 客户端 / official Mac client), and enumerates the exact actions: play/pause, previous, next. This clearly conveys what the tool does and differentiates it from most siblings like netease_launch or netease_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with the potentially overlapping netease_next_track.

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 mentions a prerequisite (macOS accessibility permission) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since netease_next_track exists as a sibling, the absence of any exclusion or selection criterion leaves the agent to guess which one to invoke for 'next'.

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