athena_retrieval_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (recompile from frozen inputs and compare) and what is compared, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies state, or any permission or error behavior. This is a clear gap.

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 filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, listing both the action and the specific comparison outputs, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overview of the operation and expected outputs. It mentions the comparison dimensions and equivalence report, though it lacks explicit return structure and side-effect clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With one parameter (run_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It does add meaning by linking the parameter to 'one stored RAGRUN', but it does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 a specific verb ('Recompile') and identifies a clear resource ('stored RAGRUN') with precise outputs (decision digest, selected sources, coverage, equivalence report). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_retrieval_get or athena_retrieval_recent by emphasizing frozen-input replay and comparison.

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 usage for replaying a stored run to verify or compare results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieval_get, retrieval_recent, or other replay tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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