list_saved_replays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no statement about pagination behavior (despite page/pageSize params), no auth or scoping requirements, no indication of result shape or ordering. Only the word 'saved' hints at a filter, which is insufficient for a 4-parameter listing 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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline. There is nothing to trim, yet the sentence does not earn additional credit for structure alone.

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 4-parameter, 1-required listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete: required scoping, pagination, and search semantics are all undocumented. An agent could not call this confidently without reading the raw schema and still would not know how it differs from its siblings.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. It never mentions websiteId (required), page, pageSize, or search — notably that a substring search filter exists is completely invisible to the 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?

The description gives a verb and resource (list + saved session replays), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, siblings list_replays, list_session_replays, and get_replay_saved_status create real ambiguity, and nothing here explains what distinguishes a *saved* replay from a plain replay listing.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite three closely related siblings (list_replays, list_session_replays, get_replay_saved_status) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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