get_demo_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned and that the event is guaranteed real, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, idempotency, authentication requirements, or error behavior.

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 a single sentence with the core purpose and return-value note front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant text.

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?

For a no-argument read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return meaning adequately. It could better distinguish the tool from related replay and live-session siblings, but nothing critical for invoking it is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 applies. The empty input schema is consistent with the description.

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, "Get", and a specific resource, "curated demo session", and the parenthetical clarifies the return value as the canonical ID of a guaranteed-real event. The "demo" qualifier implicitly separates it from get_live_session, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase "to replay" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings such as get_live_session or list_replay_sessions. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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