get_fight_replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention any side effects, performance implications, data format, or limitations. 'High-resolution replay data' is ambiguous and does not explain what the agent should expect or what constraints apply.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly the action and target without filler.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is very sparse. It doesn't explain what 'high-resolution' means, what time range parameters expect (e.g., seconds, milliseconds), or how this relates to the broader fight-oriented toolset. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no annotations, so the description should provide more context.

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%, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names (match_id, start_time, end_time, interval_seconds) are somewhat self-explanatory, but units and format are not specified. The description adds no value to the schema, and the minimal names do not compensate for the lack of detail.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get high-resolution replay data for a fight.' It indicates the tool retrieves fight replay data, but 'high-resolution' is vague and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like get_fight_combat_log or get_raw_combat_events. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool might be more appropriate. With many sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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