play_pending_preview_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Does not mutate the project' and explains the suggested concatenation behavior (pad-before + pad-after) and non-skippable cases. However, it doesn't mention the behavior of parameters like dry_run or rerender, which could affect execution.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant phrasing. It efficiently conveys key behavioral traits and limitations.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks explanation of parameters and edge cases. It doesn't clarify what 'Current' vs 'A/B' modes mean or how to set parameters correctly. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), this is incomplete and leaves agents guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any of the eight parameters. It only hints at pad-before/pad-after which relate to pad_sec, but doesn't define mode, source, gap_sec, rerender, or project_path. This is a significant gap for agents trying to set parameters correctly.

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 is for hearing Current vs Suggested vs A/B for a pending session remove, which distinguishes it from generic playback tools like play_audio_tool. However, the jargon 'skip-span' and the meaning of 'Current' vs 'Suggested' vs 'A/B' modes are not fully explained, making it less clear for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

It implies the tool is for previewing pending removals without mutating the project, but it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like play_audio_tool or play_ab_tool. It notes that splits and track-scope punches are not skippable, which provides some limitation context, but doesn't state when to prefer this tool over other playback/comparison tools.

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