play_stop_record

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions internal action IDs but does not disclose side effects (e.g., stopping current playback, recording over existing data) or any required states. Annotations already signal destructiveness, but the description fails to elaborate.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the commands. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main commands but omits details like exact string format (case sensitivity) and expected behavior during recording (e.g., whether it fails if already recording). It is minimally complete but leaves room for agent uncertainty.

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?

The input schema only defines 'command' as a string with no enum values, so the description compensates by listing the three possible values: 'play', 'stop', 'record'. This provides essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks, though it could be more precise about format (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 is for transport control with three specific commands: play, stop, and record. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only transport control tool, and the verb 'control' combined with listed operations makes the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer when transport control is appropriate.

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