get_replay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated/size-limited, or how reconstruction behaves for large replays. Given five parameters including index and time bounds, the absence of any behavioral context is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a five-parameter tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load for a paginated retrieval tool and does not. An agent cannot tell from this text how to page through chunks/events, what 'until' bounds, or what the response looks like.

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 0% across five parameters, and the description explains none of them. The pagination/partitioning semantics of until, chunkIndex, and eventIndex are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess how to iterate through a replay's events.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get reconstructed events' for 'one session replay'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_replays or get_session, which return replay metadata or session aggregates rather than the reconstructed event stream. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so no explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus list_replays, list_session_replays, or get_session, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a replayId must come from a replay listing). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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