replay_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that steps carry read/idempotent-write/destructive effects and lays out the operating rules (stop at first failure, permission for idempotent writes, owner consent for destructive steps). It stops short of describing error handling, pagination, or what a failed fetch returns.

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?

Front-loads the core action and identifier format, then enumerates return contents and closes with the policy. It is dense and long for one sentence, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 exists, yet the description enumerates the return payload (steps, templates, effects, checked status, slots, evidence, lifespan, live record, policy) and the rules for acting on it. For a one-parameter read tool this is complete enough to invoke and interpret.

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% and the lone parameter has only a bare 'Code' title, but the description compensates by specifying the exact format ('RP- and ten hex digits'). That is real added meaning beyond the schema, though it omits case-sensitivity or validation behavior.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one replay) and pins it to a unique identifier format ('RP- and ten hex digits'), which clearly separates it from replay_search. It then enumerates exactly what the fetched replay contains.

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 lookup key ('by its code') implies usage but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to the obvious sibling replay_search for agents that lack a code. The 'follow the policy' guidance addresses execution after retrieval, not tool selection.

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