veto_session_replay

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the output is a chronological trace of events rather than a snapshot of working context, which is helpful for an agent deciding to use this tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and providing crucial differentiation in the second. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns (chronological trace), its purpose (auditing/reconstructing), and how it differs from a similar tool. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('chronological event/tool-call trace for a past session'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool veto_session_restore by stating what it returns versus what the sibling returns.

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 explicitly compares to the sibling tool veto_session_restore, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (for event trace) versus when to use the other (for restoring context).

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