audio_session_replay_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a boolean validation result but does not describe return format, error behavior, side effects, or what constitutes 'enough evidence.' It also doesn't clarify whether the tool is read-only or requires a specific environment. The description leaves critical operational details unstated.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is zero redundancy or filler. The statement is compact and immediately conveys the core intent.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool deals with a complex domain (calibration artifacts, immutable evidence, deterministic offline replay). The description does not explain these terms, the required artifact format, or the validation criteria. Without additional context or an output schema, an agent cannot reliably call this tool. The description is too sparse for the level of domain-specific jargon.

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 only parameter 'artifact' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description merely says 'calibration artifact' without explaining the expected structure, required fields, or how it maps to the validation logic. The description does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess what to provide.

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 states a specific action ('validate') and a clear target ('calibration artifact') with a defined condition ('enough immutable evidence for deterministic offline replay'). It distinguishes itself from generic validation tools like audio_artifact_validate by specifying the replay context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar validation or artifact tools. It lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The description is purely declarative and assumes the agent knows when to invoke it.

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