get_replay_saved_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only implies a read-only status check. It does not disclose the return shape (e.g., boolean/status), behavior when the replay is missing, required permissions, or side effects.

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 filler. It is appropriately terse, though it could add one short clause about return value or parameters without losing concision.

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 small status-check tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'saved' means, how the result is returned, or how this relates to set_replay_saved and list_saved_replays.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description hints at a single replay but does not explain replayId, and it says nothing about websiteId, leaving both identifiers' meaning and relationship undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether one session replay is saved'), so the operation is clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_saved_replays and set_replay_saved by focusing on a single replay, though it does not 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_saved_replays, get_replay, or set_replay_saved. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'whether ... is saved', leaving the agent to guess the intended workflow.

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