Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'applies every edit verbatim' and involves 'reconstructing' state, implying it's a read-only operation that processes historical data. However, it doesn't address potential side effects, error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the output looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool that manipulates session data.

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 with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second clarifies its behavioral approach ('applies every edit verbatim'), with no wasted words.

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 (reconstructing file state from session data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the reconstructed output looks like, how errors are handled, or provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, making it inadequate for a tool with three parameters and historical data processing.

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 low at 33% (only 'at_event_id' has a description), and the description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'session JSONL' and 'past Claude Code session', which loosely relate to 'session_id', but doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('reconstruct the state of a file') and resource ('a file at a point in a past Claude Code session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_file_history' or 'get_session_timeline' by specifying it applies edits verbatim without summarization.

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 by mentioning 'past Claude Code session' and 'applies every edit verbatim from the session JSONL', suggesting it's for historical reconstruction. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_history' or 'recall', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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