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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operationaine, and the statement 'Returns recording metadata including name, platform, device, step count, and timestamps' discloses output details. Yet it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, ordering, or error behavior, and it relies on the schema to document pagination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope, the second lists return fields. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, 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 list tool, the description covers the essential context: what it lists (flow recordings), the user scope, and the return metadata fields. The lack of an output schema and annotations is offset by the description's clarity, though it omits details like default ordering or whether the list is paginated beyond limit/offset (which are in the schema). This is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all five parameters (udid, limit, offset, platform, searchQuery) are already documented with descriptions and an enum. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List flow recordings belonging to the authenticated user.' It explicitly names the return content (metadata including name, platform, device, step count, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_recording_get (single recording) or flow_recording_start (creates a recording).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list the authenticated user's flow recordings. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, such as when a more detailed view is needed (e.g., flow_recording_get). The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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