play_item

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 that the tool 'clears the current queue and starts playing immediately,' which is a significant side effect. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites like valid player/URL, but the main destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key side effect. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

While the tool is simple, the lack of parameter documentation and no mention of return behavior (despite an output schema) leaves gaps. The description covers the purpose and main side effect but omits details about how to obtain play_url and what the player parameter expects. An agent could still call it correctly if it already knows the schema, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 schema provides no descriptions and the description mentions only 'play_url' but does not explain its format or how it relates to browse()/search_service() results. The 'player' parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents guessing about parameter requirements.

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 action ('Start playing') and the specific resource ('an item found via browse() or search_service()'), and explicitly ties it to the play_url parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'play' tool, which likely handles general playback control rather than playing a specific discovered item.

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?

It indicates the tool is intended for items obtained from browse() or search_service(), providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to the discovery functions and the queue-clearing behavior gives enough guidance for typical use cases.

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