list_organization_replays

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List replays' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this or address other behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'replay' in Sentry's context. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first sentence states the core operation clearly, and the second provides helpful domain context about what replays monitor. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. While it could be slightly more structured with usage guidance, it's efficiently written.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It establishes the tool's purpose and domain context but leaves significant gaps: no behavioral transparency, no usage guidance, no explanation of return values or format implications. The high parameter count and lack of output schema suggest more contextual information would be helpful for effective tool selection and use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., stats_period vs start/end), typical values, or how parameters interact with the monitoring context mentioned. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List replays from a Sentry organization' with the specific resource (replays) and domain context (Sentry). It distinguishes from some siblings like list_projects or list_issue_events by focusing on replays, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The additional context about monitoring sessions, interactions, errors, and experience issues provides helpful domain framing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions monitoring user sessions and errors, it doesn't specify scenarios where replays would be preferred over other sibling tools like list_error_events_in_project or get_sentry_event. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for replay data versus other Sentry data types.

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