get_interview_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation, but does not state what happens if no recording exists, whether it returns null or errors, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'Get', leaving the agent to guess the behavior.

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, short sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Given the tool's simplicity, this level of conciseness is acceptable, though slightly underspecified.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return structure and edge cases. It only says 'recording and transcript metadata' without specifying what fields are included, how to handle missing recordings, or how it differs from get_interview. An agent calling this tool would lack critical context for interpreting the result, especially with no output schema to fall back on.

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 only parameter, room_id, is a UUID and is clearly named, so the schema already documents its format and requirement. The description adds no extra meaning beyond pointing at 'interview' context, but since the parameter is self-explanatory, the schema provides enough coverage. With 0% schema_description_coverage but a trivial parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'interview recording and transcript metadata', making the tool's purpose specific. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interview (which likely returns broader interview details) and get_interview_analysis (which focuses on analysis). However, it does not fully specify what the metadata includes, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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 use this tool versus get_interview, get_interview_analysis, or list_interviews. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a recording must already exist) or typical use cases. An agent must infer context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for choosing among similar siblings.

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