Get a prior replay analysis

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'persisted' qualifier, which signals that no new analysis computation occurs—just retrieval. It does not cover error cases, rate limits, or prerequisites, but for a simple get-by-ID operation these are minor gaps.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the qualifier 'persisted' is useful context rather than noise.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools for creating analyses or obtaining an analysis_id, but the low complexity and output schema cover most contextual needs.

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's 'by analysis ID' is the only semantic explanation of analysis_id. It clearly ties the parameter to the retrieval key. It does not mention where the ID comes from (e.g., from vgc_replay_analyze), but the single required string parameter is adequately explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('persisted replay coaching report'), and the selection key ('analysis ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vgc_replay_analyze, which would create a new analysis rather than fetch an existing one.

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 through the words 'persisted' and 'prior,' suggesting this tool fetches existing reports rather than creating them. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to use this tool versus vgc_replay_analyze, vgc_replay_turn, or vgc_replay_trends.

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