Воспроизвести звук

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the critical constraint of macOS-only operation and lists three sound categories. However, it omits details like file format support, volume behavior, or whether the tool blocks or returns immediately.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the platform constraint. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and platform. It could mention return behavior (e.g., no output on success) or error handling, but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by providing example sound names for the 'system' type (Basso, Glass, Hero, Ping), which goes beyond the schema. This helps the agent decide which parameter values to use.

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 (playing sounds on macOS) and specifies three types: system sounds, TTS, audio file. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing macOS-only compatibility and the various sound sources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like speak_response or playback_control. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how to choose between sound types.

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