Inspect a replay turn

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that afterEvents contains later revelations, which is critical for correct interpretation and could prevent incorrect reasoning. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core retrieval purpose and then supplies a critical usage warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has only two required parameters, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is retrieved and warns about a subtle data interpretation issue. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly interpreting analysis_id and turn, but it is adequate for a tool of this simplicity.

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%, and the description does not explain analysis_id or turn beyond the general phrase 'a turn.' The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level parameter documentation, especially for analysis_id.

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 retrieves stored state before and after a turn plus battle events, which specifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like vgc_replay_get, but the turn-scoped resource is implied by the name and description.

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 includes practical guidance: 'Judge decisions using beforeEvents only; afterEvents contains later revelations.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vgc_replay_get or vgc_replay_analyze, so usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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