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 disclosure burden. It reveals the core action and a few source modes but does not explain side effects, whether dry_run suppresses playback/extraction, what 'premix' or 'export' mean operationally, or what the output contains. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; the main verb and object appear immediately. It is concise, though the brevity is partly under-specification, which is separately penalized under contextual completeness.

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 tool with 12 parameters, zero parameter descriptions, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, a one-sentence description is inadequate. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but selection criteria, behavioral details, and key parameter semantics are missing.

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 must compensate. The parenthetical hints at possible `source` values, but the other 11 parameters (query, compare, start_sec, end_sec, padding_sec, rerender, follow_transcript, etc.) are left entirely to their names and defaults. This is far from 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 clear action ('Extract and optionally play audio') and lists source kinds (processed:<id>, track:<id>, premix, export), so the basic function is understandable. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling play_* tools, which prevents a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like play_transcript_query_tool, audition_context_tool, play_compare_tool, or export_audio_tool. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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