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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explicitly states the operation does not stop the recording and hints at return content ('what it has captured so far'), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 states the purpose, scope, and key constraint with zero waste. No extraneous text or redundancy.

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 simple, single-parameter status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and non-destructive behavior adequately. It stops short of describing return format or error conditions, but those are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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% with a single required 'udid' parameter already documented as 'iOS device UDID'. The description adds no further syntax, format, or meaning for this parameter, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('action recording status for a device'), and distinguishes itself from the stop sibling via 'without stopping it'. However, it does not name or contrast with the other related siblings such as ios_actions_recording_read or ios_actions_recordings.

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 phrase 'without stopping it' implies a usage context: check status without terminating the recording. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer that this is the non-destructive status check.

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