obs-get-last-replay-buffer-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 states the tool 'Gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific conditions (e.g., replay buffer must be enabled or have saved files), what happens if no file exists, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence: 'Gets the filename of the last replay buffer save file'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral constraints, or output format. For a read-only tool in a complex environment like OBS, more context on when and how to use it would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info and aligns with the schema's lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Gets the filename of the last replay buffer save file'. It specifies the verb ('Gets') and resource ('filename of the last replay buffer save file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-replay-buffer-status', which might provide related but different information about the replay buffer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'obs-get-replay-buffer-status' or 'obs-save-replay-buffer', or any prerequisites like needing the replay buffer to be active. Without such context, users might struggle to select the right tool.

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