play

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the action, the conditional resume behavior, and the expected return. The explanation of continue_playing versus restarting adds useful behavioral nuance.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema available. The description covers the behavior, parameter semantics, and return status sufficiently. There are no missing prerequisites or edge-case warnings that an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'from_beat' is explained as an optional beat-based cue position, and 'continue_playing' is explained as resuming from the current position rather than restarting. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start transport playback', and adds a distinct read-back behavior ('read back is_playing status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'stop' and 'arrange'.

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 description clearly implies usage: call it when you need to start transport playback and confirm playback state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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