Get Replay Buffer Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these hints (e.g., what status fields are returned). It does not contradict the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one concise sentence—"Gets the status of the replay buffer output"—with zero wasted words. It fully conveys the core function in a front-loaded, efficient manner.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter details, the description is the only source for expected return values. It only says it 'gets status' but does not describe what statuses exist (e.g., active, replayAvailable) or the return format. For a monitoring tool, this is a gap that leaves the agent uncertain about the result's structure.

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 coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds no extra parameter semantics because there are none to explain. Since the schema handles everything, a baseline of 3 is fitting.

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 gets the status of the replay buffer output. While 'status' is not detailed, the verb 'gets' and resource 'replay buffer output' are unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like ops-start/stop-replay-buffer or ops-get-last-replay-buffer-replay.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other replay buffer operations (toggle, start, stop, save). The description does not mention alternatives or excluded use cases, leaving the agent to infer when a status query is needed.

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