replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: a script without a terminal close leaves the session active, and the request times out after 90 seconds unless a caller-supplied budget extends it. These are genuinely useful. Still, for a tool that executes scripts and can have side effects on devices, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, failure modes, or what execution actually changes.

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 short, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence carries relevant behavioral information. It is not bloated. It is slightly under-sized for a 29-parameter automation tool, but that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness flaw.

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 29 parameters, no annotations, and a complex automation/device domain, the description is incomplete. It says nothing about how to select a device or platform, how leases or sessions are established, what the required 'path' refers to, how environment variables are passed, or how the output schema relates to execution results. The timeout and session notes are helpful but far from sufficient for an agent to call this tool reliably across its many options.

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 covers 69% of parameters, so the description does not need to compensate fully, but it does add useful meaning for two parameters: the 'caller-supplied budget' clarifies timeoutMs's default behavior, and the terminal-close statement clarifies session and keepSession semantics. It does not, however, add anything for the undocumented params like path, env, force, update, backend, maestro, resumeFrom, or saveScript.

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 action and resource: 'Run a recorded automation script', and further scopes it to 'compatible Maestro YAML flows'. This is clear and distinct from the sibling 'record', which creates scripts. However, it does not explicitly distinguish among other siblings like 'test' or 'batch', so it misses the top bar for sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is for running previously recorded or Maestro-authored automation, but it never explicitly says when to use replay versus record, test, batch, or other automation-related siblings. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance. The session and timeout notes are behavioral, not usage-selection guidance.

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