Play File

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key trait: the sound plays out loud on the user's machine via their default OS app, with platform-specific mechanics (open / xdg-open). It omits failure behavior (no default app, missing file) and whether the call blocks, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the platform details are compactly enumerated after the colon. The second sentence mixes agent instructions with tool behavior, which is slightly off-topic but still earns its place as workflow guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the side effect, platform handling, and the required follow-up in the reply. Missing only error/failure semantics for a tool that depends on an external OS handler.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does clarify what kinds of files the path points at (sketch, version, render), but gives no format guidance (absolute vs. relative, extension expectations).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open a sound file ... in the person's own music player') and enumerates the file kinds it accepts (sketch, version, render). It implicitly separates itself from in-app playback tools like listen_start or midi_play by naming the external, OS-level player, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 intent (let the person actually hear a rendered file) is clear, and it prescribes the surrounding workflow ('Say first that it will play out loud', give a link). However, it never states when to prefer this over listen_start, stream_start, or midi_play, nor any when-not conditions.

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