Get play state

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already declare the tool is safe and idempotent. The description merely restates the output without elaborating on rate limits, side effects, or return structure.

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?

A single, straightforward sentence with no superfluous information. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's extreme simplicity (zero parameters, boolean output implied), the description is complete. The existence of an output schema covers return structure details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids misrepresenting any inputs.

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 specifies the exact purpose: returning whether FL is currently playing and/or recording. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('FL play/recording state'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like fl_get_song_position or fl_get_tempo.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, returning basic boolean state) makes the usage context obvious; it is implied as the tool to check play/recording status without further instruction.

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