replay_export

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool renders a trace and returns a path, but does not disclose whether it modifies state (e.g., creates files on disk, side effects), or if there are permissions, size limits, or blocking behavior. The description adds some value beyond the schema (output path return) but lacks rich behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Render a session') and ends with the output ('return the output path'). Perfectly sized for the complexity.

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 3 parameters (all optional, no output schema), the description covers the core transformation but lacks detail on return format (just 'path'), side effects (file creation), and error cases (missing session). Adequate but not complete for a file-exporting tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool takes a session, renders it as a trace, and returns a path, which provides semantic context for the unspecified session_id parameter and the default behavior. This elevates it above baseline.

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 uses specific verbs ('Render', 'return') and resources ('session as a self-contained trace'), explicitly naming the output formats ('html, json, or md') and the outcome ('output path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like replay_status or replay_diff.

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 use for exporting a session trace, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like replay_sessions (list sessions) or replay_tag (tag sessions). No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria are provided.

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