replay_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only with sandbox-only mutations, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain auth needs, rate limits, or implications of parameter values.

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 three sentences, to the point, front-loaded with the main action, and provides necessary context without redundancy.

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 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description lacks enough detail about parameters, return values, and inner workings. The usage examples help but do not cover the full complexity.

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 description coverage is only 25% (one parameter described). The description does not explicitly describe parameters; it only hints at time window and strategy via context. This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 runs a sandbox replay over a time window, with a specific verb ('run') and resource ('sandbox replay'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_backtest by emphasizing sandbox-only and read-only nature, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides usage examples like 'replay the last hour' and 'rerun this period in sandbox', giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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