preview_sound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: audio is emitted on the user's machine and will be heard. It leaves out whether playback blocks the call, what happens if a sound is already playing, how long it lasts, and any file-existence or permission failure mode.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds information (action, target, output destination, 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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented path parameter, the description falls short on playback behavior and input format for a tool whose entire job is a side-effecting 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?

The single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it only implies that the path refers to a "saved sound". It says nothing about path format (absolute vs. relative), acceptable file extensions, or whether an ID could substitute for a file path.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ("play a saved sound") and adds the observable effect ("through the computer's speakers so the user can hear it"), which separates it from create_sound, export_sound, and mix_sounds. It never names a sibling to contrast with, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can pick it out of the list.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "saved" hints that the sound must already exist, and "so the user can hear it" hints at auditioning. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools (e.g., mixing before previewing, or exporting instead).

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