reachy_play_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the observable behavior (audio playback through the robot's speaker), but does not disclose whether playback blocks, whether the file must already exist on the robot, or how failures are reported.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place for such a simple tool.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers the only parameter, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at prerequisites or the relationship to reachy_list_audio. It is adequate but leaves operational details to be discovered.

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 parameter is already adequately documented as 'Name of the audio file to play'. The tool description adds no operational details about file location, format, or how to obtain valid filenames.

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 and resource: 'Play an audio recording through the robot's speaker'. It clearly separates this tool from the sibling list_audio and the movement/camera/streaming tools.

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 intended use is implied by the action verb, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It also does not mention that reachy_list_audio is the companion tool for discovering valid filenames.

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