List my replays

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: results are ordered newest-first, each row carries an AI Coach report flag, and the call is free.

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 dense sentence with the scope front-loaded, followed by ordering, per-item content, and cost. Nothing is wasted and no reading order is required.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the ordering and the AI Coach report flag, plus the default page size is in the schema. It stops short of describing pagination or other returned fields, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default and 1-50 range. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (list) plus a tightly scoped resource: the signed-in user's own uploaded replays. That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like search_sc2_knowledge, upload_replay, and get_analysis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. get_analysis or analyze_replay for a single replay). The trailing 'Free.' hints at a cost dimension relative to paid tools, but no condition for choosing this one is given.

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