loop

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 states the action but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it overrides current playback, whether it pauses existing playback, or whether it requires active playback). This is a mutating operation with no stated impacts, leaving the agent to guess.

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 sentence that leads with the action and includes both parameters. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words. Every word 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 description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but with no annotations it should perhaps clarify whether playback is automatically started or if it requires an existing playback session. It also does not mention the effect on current playback state. These are minor gaps for such a focused tool, so a 3 reflects that it is usable but not fully informative.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Start time in seconds' and 'End time in seconds'), achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates that the loop range is 'in seconds', adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Start loop playback') and the resource (loop with time bounds tBegin and tEnd). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'play' or 'seek' siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and range make the purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus play, seek, or other sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether playback must be active) or scenarios where looping is preferred. This leaves the agent to 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.