Play sound

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's phrase 'built-in sounds' usefully confirms no external resource is fetched, consistent with openWorldHint=false, but it says nothing about playback duration, blocking behavior, or whether overlapping sounds are possible.

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?

A single compact sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than through disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage across two parameters, the description leaves the volume parameter and the meaning of the sound enum undocumented. For a tool whose main decision surface is choosing a sound and level, this is a clear gap.

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, yet it only gestures at the 'sound' argument and never mentions the 'volume' parameter at all. The 29 enum values are listed dryly in the schema with no indication of what each sound conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('play ... sounds') and scopes it to the robot's built-in sound set, which distinguishes it from siblings like play_notes and say. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 play_notes, say, or show_emoji, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context 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.