replay_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists the four control verbs but doesn't disclose behavior like whether 'status' returns session state, whether actions are safe/non-destructive, whether calling actions on a non-existent session errors, or what the output schema looks like. However 'status' action hints at query capability. Partial transparency; doesn't add depth beyond the verb list.

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?

Single concise sentence listing all supported verbs. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the action verbs. Efficient and immediately parsable by an agent.

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 control tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the core verbs adequately. The action parameter with its enum-like list and per-parameter conditionality are handled by the schema. Could be slightly richer by noting the 'status' action returns current state, but schema and output schema fill most gaps. Reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a useful schema description (required for action='speed', required for action='seek', session created by start_replay). The description lists action verbs which complement the schema's action list. The description doesn't repeat parameter info, allowing the schema to carry that weight. Slight gap: no mention of what values speed accepts, which the schema also omits beyond 'number'.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Pause, resume, seek, or change the speed of a replay session.' It clearly enumerates the four primary actions and distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_replay (which creates sessions) and list_sessions (which enumerates them). The purpose is 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?

The description implies usage context (controlling an in-progress replay session) but doesn't explicitly define when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that session must be started first via start_replay (though session_id schema field hints at it), nor does it explain when to use seek vs speed vs status actions. Adequate but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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