get_session_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the manifest is verified and structurally redacted, enumerates what the return contains (step structure, logical tab targets, risk classifications, manifest hash), and explicitly states what is withheld (signing receipts). It stops short of stating required auth or permissions.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the routing guidance and return contents follow in order of usefulness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the manifest's contents and the withheld signing receipts. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only incidental detail such as permissions or size/format of the manifest.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sessionId with its source (list_sessions). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus a precisely qualified resource (the verified, structurally redacted replay manifest for a recorded session). It even names the sibling alternatives it is not (list_sessions, replay_session), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 says 'Use this instead of reconstructing a replay from logs' and then maps the two related siblings to their distinct roles (find a session vs request a consent-gated replay). Both the when and the when-not are supplied.

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