Replay buffer status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any return format. However, the description does clarify the specific states checked ('active or saving'), adding some behavioral context beyond a generic status query.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and clearly states the query subject. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or vague 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the resource and the specific status values checked, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slightly more context about the replay buffer lifecycle could elevate it, but it is not necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('replay buffer status'), and even specifies the exact information returned ('whether the replay buffer is active or saving'). This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like start_replay_buffer, stop_replay_buffer, and save_replay_buffer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recording_status or get_stream_status. The name and title imply it is for checking replay buffer status, but there is no explicit context or exclusion of other status tools.

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