edict_replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains that non-deterministic host responses (random values, timestamps, HTTP responses, file IO) are replayed from the token instead of calling real host functions. This clarifies the tool's deterministic nature and execution behavior, though it could add more on error handling or output format.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add necessary context without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior and usage, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (replaying WASM execution with tokens), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the tool's purpose and behavior. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for completeness, especially without an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds some meaning by explaining the purpose of the replay token ('from a previous edict_run call with record: true') and the tool's overall function, but does not provide additional details on parameter usage beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('re-execute', 'reproduce', 'verify') and resources ('WASM module', 'replay token'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deterministic reproduction using recorded tokens, unlike tools like edict_run (which likely runs normally) or edict_debug (which might debug without 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to reproduce exact failures or verify fixes against known execution traces'). It implies usage by describing the scenario but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., edict_run for non-replay execution), which prevents a perfect score.

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