Get the live session replay / heatmap config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reads the same public endpoint as the tracker, making it ground truth, and clarifies that it resolves unit ambiguity on max duration. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and every section earns its place: a precise summary, a rationale for using it, an Args block, a Returns block with the JSON shape, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by documenting the exact JSON return shape. The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and its typical use case is explained clearly. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the optional website parameter (ID, name, or domain) and notes the default website fallback. The description repeats this and gives an example, but adds no new semantic detail such as accepted formats, units, or edge cases. Because schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the recorder configuration Umami is actually serving to the tracker for a website.' It enumerates the exact config fields returned, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from analytics and heatmap data siblings like umami_get_click_heatmap.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: as the ground truth after umami_update_website changes, to confirm values took effect and resolve unit ambiguity. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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