Play Built-in Sound Effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('play') but adds little beyond the title; it does not mention potential side effects like interrupting current audio, requiring the device to be online, or whether the call blocks until playback completes.

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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and provides useful examples without bloat.

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 two-parameter tool, the schema and description together cover the core invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of usage guidance and behavioral side effects leaves some gaps for an agent deciding between this and similar audio-playing siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's examples add a little color to soundId values but do not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Play') and a clear resource ('built-in sound effect or chime on an Echo device'), with concrete examples ('bells, doorbells, boings, applause, buzzers'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like alexa_play_music, alexa_speak, or alexa_play_audible.

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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever a built-in sound effect or chime is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as alexa_play_music or alexa_speak for audio content that is not a built-in sound effect.

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