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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a key non-destructive trait ('without stopping it'), which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no recording is active), or the exact nature of the reported captured data, leaving 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, the captured-content scope, and the non-destructive behavior with zero redundancy. Every word 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves out any detail about the response format or error behavior (e.g., when no recording exists), and it does not redirect to related tools, so it is not fully complete.

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% for the single 'udid' parameter, which is described as 'iOS device UDID' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('action recording status' plus captured content), and explicitly notes it does not stop the recordinghopper. This distinguishes it from the start/stop siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'ios_actions_recording_read', which could overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ios_actions_record_start/stop or ios_actions_recording_read. The description implies a status-check use case but does not state prerequisites or conditions for selecting this tool over others.

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