proxypi_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'replay' entails operationally—whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description lacks transparency about the tool's internal behavior, which is a significant gap given no annotation support.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning—no filler or redundancy. It is concise, efficient, and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does and a use case. However, it omits important context such as what a 'healed request' is, how replaying works in relation to the API, and what the response contains. The description is adequate but incomplete for a tool without annotations or output schema.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions for 'host' and 'index'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema already provides thorough semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not override or enrich the schema's parameter meanings.

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 action ('Replay') and the resource ('a previously healed request'), which is specific and distinct from the sibling tools like proxypi_request or proxypi_history. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these alternatives, relying on the verb and context to imply uniqueness.

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 gives a specific use case: 'testing that a fix still works after an API update.' This implies when to use the tool but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to proxypi_request, proxypi_history, or proxypi_clear. The usage context is clear but not comparative.

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