Get replay result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: replays from both the dashboard and `slinghook listen` are included, the verdict is computed against the prior attempt to the same URL, and both response bodies are only returned on Pro and above — a tier-gating detail an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and verdict semantics, with no filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what comes back: the replay history, the four verdict values, the comparison baseline, and the conditional response bodies. Only the shape of the history list itself is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the flexible event_id formats and replay_id defaulting to latest. The description only restates that replay_id selects a specific attempt; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Shows the replay history of one event') plus the verdict for the latest replay, and enumerates the verdict values (fixed, regressed, still_failing, still_passing). This clearly separates it from siblings like replay_event (which creates a replay) and compare_events.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call after a replay to check whether a fix worked, but the description never says when to use it versus replay_event or compare_events, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing replay.

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