list_organization_replays

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. While it mentions that the tool lists replays for monitoring purposes, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), or what the output looks like. The description is too brief to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 concise with two clear sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality. The first sentence states the action and target, while the second explains the purpose of replays. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with critical information about when to use this versus sibling tools.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., stats_period vs start/end), doesn't describe the output format or structure, and doesn't provide context about what 'replays' actually are beyond the brief monitoring mention. The agent would need to infer too much from just the description and schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions monitoring aspects which relate to what replays contain, but doesn't explain how parameters like 'query', 'sort', or 'view' affect the monitoring experience. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('replays from a Sentry organization'), providing a specific purpose. It also mentions the monitoring aspects (user sessions, interactions, errors, experience issues) which adds context about what replays contain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_error_events_in_project' or 'list_issue_events' which might also involve monitoring.

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. There are several sibling tools that also list or search for data (list_error_events_in_project, list_issue_events, list_projects, search_errors_in_file), but the description doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate versus those others. It only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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