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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention the auth verification ('Verifies the replay belongs to the authenticated user') and describes the output fields, which is helpful. But it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the replay ID is invalid or not found.

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 three concise sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and usage context are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only status polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns, mentions the ownership verification, and ties it to the start tool. Minor gaps include error handling and response format details, but these are not critical for a simple poll.

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% (replayId is fully described as 'Replay ID returned by flow_replay_start'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb (poll), a specific resource (replay status), and the exact data returned (step index, pass/fail, overall status). It also references the initiating tool flow_replay_start, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like flow_replay_abort, flow_replay_step, and flow_replay_summary.

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?

It provides context that the tool is for in-progress or recently completed replays, implying it should be used after starting a replay. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using flow_replay_summary for a final summary, leaving some ambiguity.

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