replay_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying it reconstructs state, returns all memories and link graph, and requires a specific tier. No contradictions and provides helpful behavioral info beyond the annotation.

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 with three clear sentences: purpose, requirement, and structured argument/return info. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 has 2 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisite, and return type adequately. Could mention more about edge cases but sufficient for effective use.

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 description explains both parameters (at as ISO timestamp, limit with default 500) while the input schema lacks descriptions. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's field definitions, improving usability.

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 it reconstructs memory state at a specific point in time, specifying it returns memories and link graph as they existed at timestamp T. This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like replay_memory or replay_recall.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Pro tier or Novyx Cloud) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not compared to siblings.

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