play_sound

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 mentions 'customizable parameters' but fails to explain key traits like whether playback is blocking or non-blocking, error handling (e.g., if a file path is invalid), or system dependencies (e.g., TTS availability). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('play various types of sounds'). It avoids redundancy but could be more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter types (e.g., system, TTS, file) to enhance clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 the complexity of handling multiple sound types (system, TTS, file) with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like playback effects, error responses, or how outputs are handled, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters, including enums and requirements. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only vaguely references 'customizable parameters' without elaborating on their semantics or interactions, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'play[s] various types of sounds with customizable parameters', which clarifies the action (play) and resource (sounds) but is vague about scope and differentiation. It does not specify what 'various types' means or how it differs from sibling tools like play_error_sound, leaving room for ambiguity.

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, such as the sibling tools (play_error_sound, play_info_sound, play_warning_sound). The description implies general sound playback but offers no context for choosing between this and more specific tools, leading to potential misuse.

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