reverse-finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Blocks until stopped' but does not describe side effects, whether it is read-only, or error conditions (e.g., if no call site exists). More detail on blocking behavior and return values is needed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and differentiation from sibling tool. No unnecessary words.

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 is reasonably complete for a specialized tool with an output schema, but lacks parameter documentation and could elaborate on behavior when the call site is not found. Given the complexity of reverse execution, more detail on return states would improve completeness.

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 input schema has two parameters (timeout, session_id) with 0% coverage from the description. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters do, their formats, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 runs backwards to the call site of the current function, using specific verbs and targets. It distinguishes from siblings like finish, reverse-step, and reverse-next by explicitly contrasting with finish and implying it operates at function level.

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 specifies it is for rr replay only and requires a session created by start_replay_session. It also explains the relationship to finish, helping the agent choose between forward and reverse stepping.

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