bouncer_replay_incident

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly and closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data is a labelled reconstruction with benign stand-in code because the real malicious versions were pulled from npm. It does not cover latency, auth, or exactly what is returned, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the reconstruction caveat is well placed at the end where it is most relevant. The incident enumeration overlaps the schema enum but the appended years give it enough extra value to be defensible.

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 one-parameter read-only tool this is mostly sufficient, and the simulation framing is clear. However with no output schema the description never indicates what a replay returns, which an agent would reasonably want to know before invoking it.

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% and one enum governs the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the enum values and adds years (axios 2026, keyv 2026, chalk 2025, nx 2025, tinycolor 2025), which is contextual flavor but does not change how the parameter is supplied.

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?

Names a specific action (replays a real npm hijack) and the exact artifacts involved, and its scenario/simulation nature cleanly separates it from the check_* siblings. The verb 'replays' is slightly ambiguous about what the caller actually receives, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 framing 'as an agent would have met it 30 minutes after publication, before any advisory existed' implies the intended scenario (seeing pre-advisory behavior), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the check_* siblings for real-world verdicts.

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