save_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the save behavior, precondition (buffer must be running), and return value (clip path). However, it omits details like error handling if the buffer is not running, whether saving is destructive, or side effects (e.g., buffer cleared after save).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, especially regarding the parameter, which prevents a top score.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the tool's purpose, a precondition, and return value. However, the missing explanation for 'dry_run' means an agent would lack critical information to use the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description completeness.

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 single parameter 'dry_run' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its meaning. The user cannot infer what a dry run entails—whether it checks path validity, simulates saving, or something else. This is a critical omission.

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 ('Save the replay buffer') and the resource (replay buffer). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_replay_buffer' by specifying the save operation, and includes the precondition that the buffer must be running. The return of the clip path adds specificity.

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 usage context by stating the tool saves the replay buffer and requires it to be running. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'start_record' for full recording), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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