Retrieval Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only inspection operation but does not disclose whether replaying re-executes queries, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Ambiguity around 'replay' and lack of side-effect information make it insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it omits parameter details that are critical given the schema's lack of descriptions, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the 4 undocumented parameters, usage in context of sibling tools, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, this is incomplete and leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about what each parameter does (run_id, pipeline_tag, limit, since_iso). Without any parameter guidance, the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool.

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 replays stored retrieval runs for inspection of chunks, scores, sources, and ranks. It uses specific verbs (replay, inspect) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on historical analysis rather than diff, observe, or stats.

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 inspecting past retrieval results, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (retrieval_diff, retrieval_observe, retrieval_stats) or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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