gx3_replay_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it only reads files and never opens a PLC connection, and it warns about interpreting temporal ordering between devices due to sampling. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior, though it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects beyond the read-only implication.

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 the main purpose stated upfront and additional caveats presented in a clear, second sentence. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering the essential operations and the important sampling caveat.

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?

The description gives a high-level overview of the four operations (normalize, series, changes, snapshot) and mentions the relationship to gx3_explain_snapshot. However, it does not elaborate on the output format or specific behavior of each verb, which could leave an agent uncertain about which verb to choose for a given task. Overall, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 high (83%) with all parameters described. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, except for hinting that snapshot output is intended for gx3_explain_snapshot. Since the schema already covers parameter meanings well, the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: reading captured CSV/JSON logs offline and performing specific operations (normalize, series, changes, snapshot). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from live tools by explicitly noting it never opens a PLC connection.

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 the scenario of 'already-captured' logs and the offline nature, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., gx3_trace_device for live data). No direct when-not guidance is provided.

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