playback_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains that it returns current playback status and details the 'state' field including the nuanced meaning of 'stalled'. It does not disclose authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, the behavioral context is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second enumerating returned fields. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns, including state values with special explanation for 'stalled'. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. It adds value by describing the return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current playback status', and lists the specific fields returned (app, title, state, position, duration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like play, search, library, tv_control by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

Usage context is implied by the nature of the tool (getting status) compared to siblings like play (control) and search (finding content). However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, or when not to use it, is provided.

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