sfx_play

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 usefully reveals the output destination ('default audio output') and the id-or-path input flexibility, but it omits other behavioral traits such as blocking behavior, error handling, or side effects beyond playback.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every clause contributes either the action, the input flexibility, or the purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's simple surface, the absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage leaves important gaps: out_dir's role, whether sound_id is a path or a preset id, and expected return behavior. The description is too thin for an agent to call the tool with full confidence.

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. It adds some meaning to sound_id ('by id or path'), but out_dir is entirely undocumented, and the relationship between sound_id and out_dir is unclear. This leaves an agent guessing about a required-or-optional parameter's purpose.

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 identifies a specific action ('Play a WAV') and a concrete resource ('by id or path'), with a clear user-facing purpose ('so the user can hear it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sfx_render or sfx_analyze, which suggest file generation or analysis rather than audible playback.

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?

The tool's use case is implied: use it when the user needs to hear a WAV through the machine's default audio output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling tool names.

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