siren_play

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It prominently warns 'physical alarm sound' and notes that execution is controlled by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED and requires confirm=true. This conveys meaningful safety and mutation context beyond the schema.

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 dense and efficient: a warning, endpoint, and four one-line parameter explanations. No filler or redundant content exists, and the safety warning is front-loaded.

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?

All required invocation details are present: how to get siren_id, how to confirm, duration options, and the mutation gate. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not the description's responsibility. The description is complete for a safety-relevant action.

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 explain every parameter, and it does: host format, siren_id source, confirm requirement, and duration choices with upstream default. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 begins with a specific action, 'Sound a siren (POST /v1/sirens/{id}/play),' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like siren_stop or siren_test_sound by naming a distinct verb and endpoint.

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 gives practical usage instructions: siren_id must come from list_sirens, confirm must be true, and duration options are listed. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like siren_stop or siren_test_sound, but the context of when to use it is clear.

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