download_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs downloads, which is typically non-destructive, and mentions parallelism via the 'max_workers' parameter. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), authentication requirements, or idempotency. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and every line provides necessary information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 (downloading replay parts with three parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description covers the main use case well. It specifies the parameters with acceptable detail. However, it omits potential error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how to interpret the output file(s). Still, it is fairly complete for a straightforward download tool.

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 input schema provides only titles for properties (e.g., 'User Id', 'Session Id', 'Max Workers'), with no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: user_id is 'Numeric War Thunder player ID', session_id is 'Hexadecimal replay session ID', max_workers is 'Parallel downloads from 1 through 8'. This adds crucial type and constraint information beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Download every .wrpl part for one user/session pair.' It uses a specific verb ('download') and explicitly identifies the resource ('.wrpl parts') and scope (one user/session pair). The sibling tool 'get_mcp_status' is distinct, so no confusion about purpose.

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 the tool is used when you want to download replay parts for a specific user and session. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given only one sibling (get_mcp_status), the context is clear but the description lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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