Replay a recorded run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It honesty states that replay is $0, does not spend LLM calls, replays the persisted event log, and produces a new replay-badged run. This is useful context beyond the bare schema, though it does not cover effects such as run creation visibility or whether the original run is modified.

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 first states the core behavior and formatting traits, the second gives the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While no output schema exists and the description clarifies the high-level purpose, an agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without understanding scan_id and speed. No annotations or schema descriptions fill those gaps, so the definition is incomplete for confident tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain scan_id or speed at all. It only implies that source_run_id refers to the earlier recorded run, leaving two of three parameters sematically opaque.

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 names a specific verb ('re-serve') and resource (a recorded run's persisted event log) and clearly states the result: a new replay-badged, $0 run. This distinguishes agent_replay from agent_run_events and agent_runs, which list or stream existing run data rather than creating a new replayed run.

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 explicitly says to use this when reviewing what an earlier run found without spending LLM calls, which gives a clear use case. It does not name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not guidance.

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