Replay ToolQuest Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating determinism and that verification covers every stateVersion, stateHash, outcome, and final state. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful operational detail beyond the structured hints.

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 convey what the tool does, how it behaves, and that it is non-mutating with no filler. The key action and verification scope are front-loaded before the no-change guarantee.

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?

With one required parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema present to define return data, and annotations covering the safety and idempotence profile, the description leaves no critical gap for an agent deciding whether or how to call replay_run.

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 single parameter runId is fully documented in the schema (opaque ID returned by start_run, pattern and length constraints), so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. Per the high-schema-coverage baseline, this is adequate.

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 ('rebuild') and resource ('a run from its redacted event log') and enumerates the verification targets: stateVersion, stateHash, outcome, and final state. This distinguishes replay_run from get_run and export_report even without naming 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 purpose implies when to use it (when a deterministic reconstruction/verification of a run is needed) and the sentence 'This does not change the run' signals safe read-side usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_run or other siblings, leaving routing largely to inference.

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