replay_autoplay

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions the toggle behavior and the confirmation step ('Confirms the result by reading autoplay back'), which adds value. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., dependencies on replay being active) or any failure modes, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence contributes: the action, the parameter semantics, and the confirmation behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, optional parameters, and confirmation. It lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., whether replay must be active), but for a simple toggle this is a minor gap. The absence of an output schema means the confirmation statement partially compensates for return-behavior expectations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the optional 'enabled' parameter's flip behavior and that speed is optional and combined with state change. This clarifies usage semantics that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 ('Turn autoplay on or off in replay mode'), specifies the resource (autoplay within replay mode), and mentions optional speed setting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like replay_start/stop, which control replay playback itself rather than autoplay state.

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?

It gives explicit instructions on parameter use: 'Pass enabled to say which state you want; omit it to flip whatever the current state is.' This tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool for desired outcomes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context of replay-autoplay vs replay-start/stop is implicit.

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