get_playhead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns position and status and enumerates the possible status values, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it address error behavior or server prerequisites. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and expected result. It includes the essential detail of the status values without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple, parameterless query tool with no output schema, the description covers the return values and status options. It lacks explicit mention of the numeric format of position (e.g., floating-point seconds), but this is likely inferred. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters. Since there are no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is high, and the description is entirely consistent with the schema.

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 the verb 'get', the resource 'playhead', and the specific information returned (position in seconds and status). It lists the valid status values, making it distinct from sibling control tools like play, pause, stop, seek, and loop, as well as other query tools.

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. While it is implicitly a read-only query, there is no explicit mention of when it should be preferred over get_server_status or other getters, nor any exclusion conditions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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