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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: the data volume is large (⚠ 資料量大). However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any performance implications beyond the warning, leaving notable gaps.

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 extremely concise, using two short phrases to state the purpose and the warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and the most important caveat, and every word contributes useful information without fluff.

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 tool, the description gives the essential purpose and a data volume warning, but with no output schema or annotations, it should say more about what the returned events look like and how this tool relates to get_rrweb_summary. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps around return structure and selection criteria.

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 only report_id with no description, and the description provides no parameter-level detail. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not mention the required report_id or explain how it relates to fetching the events. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 retrieves '完整 DOM 事件' (complete DOM events) and explicitly says 'Full rrweb events,' identifying the resource and scope. The word 'Full' also distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_rrweb_summary, implying this is the raw, complete event data rather than a 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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the data volume warning, which suggests caution but does not state when to prefer get_rrweb_summary or other tools. There are no explicit when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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