replay_eligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is cheap and read-only, never fetches the full session blob, checks only metadata, always returns a funnel of considered vs excluded sessions, and explains the min_turns/min_tool_calls tradeoff. This is exemplary transparency.

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 paragraphs, each earning its place: purpose and cost, invocation modes and output semantics, and parameter override caveats. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the guidance is dense without being repetitive.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides complete enough context: when to call it, how to use both modes, what it checks, what it returns, and what caveats apply to parameter overrides. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful semantics for session_id, min_turns, min_tool_calls, and the shared corpus filter set (days/source/model_family/project/session_category/limit) by referencing replay_corpus. It doesn't individually describe every parameter's allowed values or defaults, but the grouped reference is useful enough for correct invocation.

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: it checks whether replaying compression mechanisms on captured sessions is worth doing. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming replay_session and replay_corpus as the follow-up actions it pre-empts.

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?

Explicitly says 'call this before replay_session or replay_corpus' and explains the two invocation modes: pass session_id for a single session, omit it for a corpus window using the same filters as replay_corpus. It also warns against loosening filters to force a non-finding, which is strong usage guidance.

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