list_replays

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Read-only' and explains what the call reveals (pinned recordings, what a matching request returns). It does not cover auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but this is reasonable for a read-only list 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary purpose comes first, followed by concrete use cases and a read-only note. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what results conceptually represent. Minor gaps exist around output format or errors, but the agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 50% because 'service' has no description in the schema. The description adds context that the service owns the recordings and that a key provides full detail, but it does little to define the service parameter's format or required semantics beyond that. The key parameter is already documented in the schema.

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 and resource ('List the replay recordings a service currently holds') and clarifies the tool's role in exposing pinned recordings and replay behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like request_history and setup_replay by focusing on recording inventory rather than history or setup.

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?

It gives explicit trigger scenarios: use after setup_replay to confirm capture, or when suspicious that a response is replayed. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for when not to use the tool.

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