get_replay_status

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 never confirms this is a read-only, non-destructive check. It also omits the possible status states (pending/ready/failed/not prepared), polling/backoff guidance, and any error behavior for a missing or unknown session.

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 sentence with zero filler and the readiness condition stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting necessary detail rather than from tight editing.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn what the tool returns and how to react to each status. For a status-polling tool this is a substantive gap: an agent cannot tell whether to retry, give up, or stream.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's schema description already names its sources (list_replay_sessions, get_demo_session). The prose adds no format, validity, or error semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Check whether') plus a precise resource ('a session's playback artifact') and the condition being tested ('ready to stream'). It is clearly distinct from prepare_replay or list_replay_sessions, though those siblings are never named.

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 phrase 'ready to stream' implies this is a readiness poll run before/after prepare_replay, but the description never states when to call it, whether it should be polled, or what to do if not ready. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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