session_replay

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that results are chronological and include timestamps, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the output includes full tool call details (parameters, results), potential size limits, or any side effects (though it seems read-only). This is minimal viable transparency but leaves 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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information and is easily scannable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the core behavior (list tool calls chronologically with timestamps) but does not elaborate on the return structure (e.g., fields included) or usage context. It is minimally acceptable, but the agent might need to call it to discover the output shape. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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 has a single integer session_id with no description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'a session' but does not explain what the session_id represents, how to discover it, or any expected format beyond being an integer. This adds minimal semantic value over the raw parameter name, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.

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's purpose: 'Return all tool calls from a session in chronological order with timestamps.' It specifies the action (return), resource (tool calls from a session), and key attributes (chronological order, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling session tools like session_search or session_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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an active session, how to obtain the session_id). The only implied context is from the name and description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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