playback

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 explains the start/stop behavior and maps to the underlying API (Play.StartOrStop / Play.Stop), but it does not disclose any preconditions, side effects, or requirements such as an active connection to Dorico. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a one-line purpose followed by a parameter explanation. The 'Maps to' line provides useful implementation context without unnecessary length. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the tool's purpose and both parameters with accepted values. However, it omits environmental context like whether a connection is required, which might affect usage in a larger workflow. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing the allowed values for action ('play' or 'stop') and explaining the meaning of location with four enum values (kPlayhead, kSelection, kStartOfFlow, kLastStartPosition). This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on what each location represents.

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 'Start or stop playback' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navigate, save, and add_notes by focusing solely on playback control. This is not a tautology but a clear, actionable purpose.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the two parameters and their allowed values (e.g., action: 'play' or 'stop'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it misses the top score for explicit guidance.

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