feedbug_get_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL (not the replay itself) and specifies the replay duration (last 30 seconds). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'get replay'. It does not cover potential expiration or authentication needs, but the core behavior is well described.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a critical detail (replay duration). Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what the replay contains, and implies the input is a bug identifier. No gaps remain for a typical usage scenario.

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 coverage is 100%: the input schema already describes the 'id' parameter as a 'Feedback UUID or Linear identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the explanation.

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 action ('Get the session replay URL') and the resource ('for a bug'), with additional context about what the replay contains. It distinguishes itself from siblings like feedbug_get_bug (which returns bug details) and feedbug_list_bugs (which lists bugs).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a session replay showing user activity before a bug was reported. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the purpose is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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