Get Last Replay Buffer File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format, error handling, or side effects. Since the annotations provide the core transparency, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate; the description is consistent but contributes nothing beyond the structured data.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, earning the highest score for efficiency.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, simple read-only operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It states exactly what is retrieved. While it does not specify the filename format or behavior when no replay buffer exists, this is minor given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 function: 'Gets the filename of the last replay buffer save file.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('filename of the last replay buffer save file'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs-get-replay-buffer-status (status) and obs-save-replay-buffer (saving) by focusing specifically on retrieving the filename.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or mention other tools that might be more appropriate. The usage context is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, which is insufficient per the rubric.

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