play_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a URL but doesn't cover aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits for a tool that likely interacts with a web service.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists the single argument with a brief explanation, and notes the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, but overall it's minimal for a tool that might involve web interactions.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'encoded_level' is 'An encoded level string for playing', which clarifies its purpose but doesn't provide format details or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this partially compensates but is insufficient for full understanding. The baseline is adjusted due to low coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the URL to play a VibeTide level in the web player.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('URL'), and context ('VibeTide level in the web player'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'view_level' or 'decode_level_from_url', which might have overlapping purposes.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'view_level' or 'decode_level_from_url', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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