download_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses locking behavior (state_lock during resolve, file read outside state_lock, ReplayWriter lock) and explains the availability window. It does not cover potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling for invalid states.

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 structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a section on availability and locking. It is longer than necessary but each part adds relevant context. No redundancy.

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?

Covers key aspects like timing and locking, but lacks details on the response format (beyond JSONL text), error scenarios (e.g., connection not IN_GAME), and output schema. For a download tool, some of these gaps are acceptable, but overall it feels incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the connection_id parameter. However, it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema title. The parameter remains underdocumented for an AI agent.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches a match replay as JSONL text. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'match replay' are specific, and the format is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_history (returns JSON) or get_match_telemetry (returns telemetry).

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?

Provides a clear condition for use: while the connection is IN_GAME, including after the game ends but before state is purged. This gives an important timing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if connection is not IN_GAME) or suggest alternative tools.

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