get_replication_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully specifies 'all' (indicating complete retrieval) and 'current' (indicating temporal state of evidence grade), but lacks crucial operational details such as pagination behavior for large replication histories, error conditions for invalid scroll IDs, or confirmation that this is a read-only 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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the dual output components. Efficient structure appropriate for the tool's focused scope.

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 has an output schema (not shown in detail), the description appropriately identifies the key data categories returned. However, with zero schema coverage on inputs and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in documenting the scroll_id parameter and operational context, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. The phrase 'for a scroll' implicitly defines the scroll_id parameter's purpose (identifying the target scroll), providing minimal viable semantic context. However, it omits format expectations, where to obtain valid IDs, or validation constraints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resources being retrieved: 'all replication attempts' and 'current evidence grade' for a scroll. The scope and intent are unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_replication_tool or lookup_scroll_tool by focusing specifically on replication history and grading.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_scroll_tool or check_submission_status. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a submitted scroll) or when an agent should prefer this over other inspection tools.

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