play_audio_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies an extract-without-play mode via 'optionally play'; it does not disclose permissions, side effects, whether extraction writes files, or how dry_run/compare/rerender behave.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, so it does not earn a high score.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input semantics and behavioral profile are essentially absent.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches the 'source' parameter via the parenthetical and leaves raw, query, compare, dry_run, start_sec/end_sec, rerender, match_index, padding_sec, project_path, and follow_transcript entirely undocumented.

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 verb+resource ('Extract and optionally play audio') is identifiable, and the parenthetical names source variants (processed:<id>, track:<id>, premix, export). However, the parenthetical is cryptic and the tool is indistinguishable from the many sibling play_* tools (play_compose_tool, play_ab_tool, play_compare_tool, play_transcript_query_tool), so an agent cannot tell which play tool applies here.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other play/audition siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The source list hints at inputs but gives no selection guidance.

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