replay_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds behavioral detail that annotations do not: it ranks results by match count, and it supports browsing without a query. It doesn't mention pagination or result structure, but with readOnlyHint covering safety and the description covering search semantics, it is adequate. 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key features (full-text search, fields, filters, ranking) before the practical note about omitting the query. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about what the results look like (e.g., list of session IDs, relevance scores). However, the description covers search scope, filter usage, and ranking. The tool is a read-only search, so missing pagination/result details are a minor gap. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 all 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the overall behavior (e.g., 'Omit the query to browse by filters alone') and clarifies that filters are optional and can be used standalone. This is valuable because it explains the relationship between query and filters, which the schema alone doesn't. A score of 4 reflects this added value above the baseline of 3.

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 tool performs full-text search across recorded sessions with specific fields (event payloads, objective, name, tags) and optional filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it searches against session content, whereas siblings like replay_sessions or replay_status likely list or inspect sessions. The verb 'search' plus the resource 'recorded sessions' and scope make it unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Omit the query to browse by filters alone.' It also lists the optional filters (tool, cause, since, until, project) directly in the description, telling the agent when to use this tool (for search) and implicitly when not (when needing exact session retrieval, use replay_sessions). It does not name siblings explicitly, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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