emu_replay_scenario_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'v2' but does not explain what versioning means, what side effects replaying has, whether it mutates state, or whether it is read-only. It does not describe the expected output or how it handles invalid IDs. The agent has no information about what happens on replay—does it create a new run, or return the original? This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence—which is appropriate for a tool with a simple interface. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical behavioral and usage details, so while the structure is clean, the value is low.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is far too minimal. The tool operates in a complex domain (scenario runs) with many sibling tools, so the agent needs at least a hint of what 'replay' does and how it differs from related operations. The description does not mention return values, side effects, or error conditions, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has one parameter 'id' (required, string) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information beyond the schema's minimal definition, so the agent must guess what 'id' refers to—likely a scenario run ID, but the description does not clarify. This is particularly problematic because the parameter name is vague and the description does not compensate.

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 'Replay a previous v2 scenario run' states the verb 'Replay' and the resource 'v2 scenario run', making the primary action clear. However, it lacks specificity about what 'replay' entails—does it re-execute, or does it return an existing run? It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like emu_get_scenario_run or emu_apply_scenario, which also relate to scenario runs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emu_apply_scenario (to start a new run) or emu_get_scenario_run (to fetch a run). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the scenario must have been run before, or whether this tool is suitable for re-using a previous run's inputs. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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