save_replay_buffer

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 clearly states that the action writes to disk, which is the primary side effect, but it does not disclose that the replay buffer must be running to succeed, nor any error behavior or output details. This is adequate but incomplete for a side-effecting operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It includes a helpful parenthetical clarifying the 'instant replay' concept, making it both concise and easy to understand.

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 description covers what the tool does but omits important contextual caveats such as the need for an active replay buffer or the output location. With no annotations and no output schema, this is a noticeable gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rules, the baseline is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter specifics, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('replay buffer') and clarifies the action ('to disk') with the 'instant replay' context. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_replay_buffer_status and start_replay_buffer, which handle different aspects of the replay buffer lifecycle.

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 implies the tool is used to save a replay clip, but it does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., the replay buffer must be active) or compare to alternatives. Sibling tools like start_replay_buffer and stop_replay_buffer exist, but no guidance is given on when to use this instead.

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