replay_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool reads specific replay fields and mentions tri-state booleans, but it does not clarify what tri-state means, how errors are surfaced when replay is unavailable, or what the target_id and expected_layout_id do for a read operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. The phrase 'with tri-state booleans' is slightly jargon-heavy but still compact and informative.

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?

For a read-only status tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the fields being read, partially compensating for the missing return schema. However, it omits how the tri-state booleans should be interpreted and does not explain the role of the optional parameters in a read context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline but leaves no extra guidance about optional parameters for reads.

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 names a clear read operation for replay state and enumerates the status fields: availability, cursor, autoplay, and simulated position. It distinguishes itself from sibling replay_start/stop/step tools by being the read-only status reader, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as chart_get_state, replay_start, or replay_autoplay. It states what is read but not the context or prerequisites for using it.

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