list_saved_replays

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only filenames are returned and only from the replay folder, which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, behavior when the folder is missing or empty, ordering of results, or what game_dir/documents_dir change at runtime.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter and behavior detail.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what game_dir vs documents_dir mean, whether results are sorted, or what happens with defaults.

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% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Page through' loosely maps to limit/offset, but game_dir and documents_dir — the two parameters that likely determine which folder is listed — get no explanation at all.

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 names a specific verb ('page through') and resource ('local .acreplay filenames') and bounds the scope to the replay folder, so an agent can tell this is a replay-file lister rather than a launcher or scanner. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as prepare_replay_launch, but 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 word 'page through' implies this is a paginated enumeration, which hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like scan_environment or prepare_replay_launch, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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