toggle_replay_buffer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool name. It does not explain side effects, state dependencies, or any potential failures (e.g., what happens if the buffer is already on/off).

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 sentence of six words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, containing no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 is minimally viable for a simple toggle with no parameters, but it lacks any mention of behavioral nuances such as state dependence or relationship to the sibling start/stop commands. Given the availability of more specific alternatives, the completeness is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully covered, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; the schema already reflects this.

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 'toggle' and the resource 'replay buffer', with an explicit on/off scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_replay_buffer and stop_replay_buffer, which describe more specific actions.

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 instead of the more specific start_replay_buffer or stop_replay_buffer siblings. It lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on choosing the appropriate tool.

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