replay_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked by match count' and that the query is optional for browsing by filters. However, it does not mention typical traits like response format, pagination, error handling, or any destructive implications, making it adequate but not rich.

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 at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains ranking and browsing mode. No waste.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining results format and behavior. It covers input behavior (search, filters, ranking) but omits what the response contains, pagination limits, or error conditions. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for a complex search 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about search behavior and query optionality, but does not provide additional meaning for specific parameters beyond what the schema already describes. The guidance on omitting query is the only extra semantic value.

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, and that results are ranked by match count. While the purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools like replay_sessions or replay_insights, the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from these alternatives.

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 some usage guidance, such as 'Omit the query to browse by filters alone', which tells the agent when to omit the query. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus siblings like replay_sessions or replay_insights, and does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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