replay_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or sort order. It is consistent with annotations, earning a baseline score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action, resource, and key return fields efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but these are implicit in 'recent' and the limit parameter. Minor gaps exist but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with default and description (100% coverage). The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema, so it remains at 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 lists recent sessions and specifies the returned fields (status, model, duration, checkpoint count). It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings that perform actions like resuming, exporting, or diffing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replay_status or replay_insights. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer that it is for general listing without any situational cues.

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