engram_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the read implication of "Return." It does not state whether results are paginated/truncated (relevant given a limit param), how the format enum affects output, or whether replay is scoped by wing or compresses/merges events.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than disciplined concision.

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 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks the information needed to choose among the temporal/history siblings or to predict how limit and format shape the returned replay.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. "room" and "chronological" loosely map to the room param and ordering, but wing, limit (default 50), and the text/json format enum are never explained in either place.

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 has a verb ("Return") and a resource ("the chronological story of a room"), with "session replay" as a clarifying gloss. However, "story of a room" is fuzzy, and it gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like engram_history, engram_diary_read, or engram_load_room, so the agent cannot route confidently.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite the presence of closely related siblings (engram_history, engram_diary_read, engram_kg_timeline). The invocation context is entirely left to inference.

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