replay_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It reveals the tool returns a summary (read-only), which is helpful, but does not mention whether it has side effects, requires a running session, or whether the 'current session' is reset on new calls. The description is adequate but leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key output fields. Every word adds value with no 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable summary of what the tool returns. It could mention whether it requires an active session or how it relates to sibling tools, but overall it covers the essential purpose for a simple summarization 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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description need not explain parameter details. However, it adds value by listing the fields included in the output (objective, status, counts, last activity), giving the agent an idea of what to expect despite no output schema.

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 provides a current session summary with specific fields (objective, status, checkpoint/event counts, last activity). This is a specific verb+resource pattern and differentiates from siblings like replay_checkpoint (specific checkpoint operations) and replay_stats (likely numeric statistics).

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 this is for getting a summary, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Siblings like replay_checkpoint and replay_stats could overlap; without exclusion criteria, an agent might guess between them.

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