replay

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is offline and non-destructive, but doesn't mention error handling, file existence requirements, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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, each earning its place: first states primary use, second explains mechanism, third gives context. No fluff, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

No output schema and description does not explain what 'checks' results look like or how they are returned. For a test tool, this is a significant gap. Also, no mention of prerequisites or dependencies.

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% with a clear description for the only parameter 'cassette'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 replays a cassette offline and runs checks, with a specific verb 'replays' and resource 'previously recorded cassette'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record' by mentioning 'previously recorded'.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful in CI or when the live server is unavailable.' It implicitly differentiates from live testing but doesn't mention alternatives like 'record' or 'check_server'.

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