Play

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the action is a state-changing start operation, but doesn't state what happens if the transport is already running, whether it fails when no session is loaded, or whether starting the transport has side effects on recording or decks. These are material unknowns for an agent deciding whether and when to invoke it.

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?

At three words, the description is maximally efficient and front-loaded, with zero filler. It earns a strong conciseness score, but it borders on under-specification; a single clarifying clause about behavior when already playing would have made it both concise and more informative.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the resource. However, the complete absence of annotations, edge-case behavior, and sibling differentiation leaves clear gaps in what an agent knows before invoking it, making this a minimum-viable definition rather than a complete one.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 ('Start') plus a concrete resource ('Live's transport'), which conveys the core operation and is distinguishable from siblings like stop, fire_deck, and load_to_deck. A slight deduction because 'transport' is domain jargon and the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the meaning is clear in the Ableton Live context established by the sibling list.

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 given about when to use this tool over alternatives. The closest sibling, 'stop', is the obvious inverse, and 'fire_deck' starts deck-level playback rather than the main transport, but neither distinction is stated anywhere. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and general domain knowledge.

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