Get action replay (rrweb slice)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the size warning and that it doesn't alter get_user_actions. However, it omits idempotency, error handling, or authorization needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers identification methods, size mitigation, and relationship to get_user_actions. Missing return value specifics (e.g., FullSnapshot details) but acceptable given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: actionId references get_user_actions, fromTs/toTs are explicit timestamps, bundleId is optional when one bundle loaded, actionIndex is an alternative 0-based index into semantics.userActions. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 returns raw rrweb events for a user-action step with FullSnapshot anchor prepended. It distinguishes from sibling get_user_actions, which only returns lightweight pointers.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to identify the step: pass actionId from get_user_actions or explicit fromTs/toTs. Mentions optional maxEvents for large output. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the one sibling mentioned.

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