replay_request

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that it re-sends 'same method, headers, and body' and returns the response, which covers the core behavior. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a simple replay operation.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by explaining what happens (replay) and what is returned (response). It does not mention edge cases or exclusions, but they are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (id and target_url) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds context by explaining that the request is replayed as-is, but it does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Re-send a previously captured request... to a target URL'. It uses a specific verb ('re-send') and identifies the resource (previously captured request), distinguishing it from siblings like list_requests or clear_requests.

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 implies usage (when you need to resend a previously captured request) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, though the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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