replay_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool does not re-execute the request, only re-inspects cached data. It also mentions JSONPath filtering and history indexing. However, it lacks information on what happens if no cached response exists or error conditions.

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 concise at three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, covering the core function, usage advice, and parameter hints without 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for a retrieval/inspection tool. It explains the core operation, usage scenarios, and parameter usage. Minor gap: does not mention possible errors (e.g., no cached response) or output format.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that index uses negative numbers (-1=latest), and that jsonpath root is $ (not $.body). This provides additional context that aids correct usage.

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?

Clearly states the action (re-inspect a cached response without re-executing) and the resource (cached API response). The description immediately distinguishes it from siblings like execute_request by emphasizing 'without re-executing the request.'

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?

Explicitly advises use for POST/PUT/DELETE to avoid duplicate side effects, providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for read endpoints) or name siblings like execute_request as alternatives.

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