replay_status

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the returned status contains. This is a gap for a status tool.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's function. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

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 status retrieval tool, the description lacks crucial details such as the format of the returned status (e.g., string codes, object with fields) and possible values. With no output schema, the agent has insufficient information to interpret the result.

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 input schema has zero parameters, achieving 100% schema coverage. Per guidelines, a tool with no parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 it retrieves 'current replay status', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like replay_start and replay_stop, which involve actions, not status retrieval.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward (status check), so usage is implied. Could be improved by noting it should be used after replay_start or replay_step.

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