replay_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'replay', hinting at network activity but not explaining side effects, whether it modifies original data, or any authentication requirements. Schema fields like timeout_seconds suggest execution duration but lack elaboration.

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?

One sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. Every part is essential.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and 3 required ones, the description omits context about what 'captured' means, how to obtain inbox_id/request_id, and what the output schema returns. The tool is moderately complex but the description is too sparse.

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 40% (only destination_url and override_method have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. For inbox_id and request_id, no guidance is provided on where to obtain them.

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 action (replay), the resource (captured HookRay request), and the destination (any reachable from this machine). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook_inbox, inspect_request, etc., which do not perform replay.

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 implies usage for replaying requests but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_request or wait_for_request. There is no when-not guidance.

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