inspect_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description does disclose the tool's behavioral trait of opening without starting playback (non-destructive inspection). However, it doesn't disclose details about return format, potential errors with unsupported file types, or behavior when path is invalid. The 'describe it without starting playback' is useful but limited.

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: one concise statement of purpose and one clear usage directive. Zero filler, every sentence earns its place, and the key differentiator (no playback) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which presumably documents return structure), full schema parameter coverage of 100%, and only 1 required param. Given these, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could add a touch more on error handling or file-type edge cases, but the provided context is solid for a relatively simple inspection tool.

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% with good descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description additionally explains the purpose of the max_events cap (limiting event listing) and clarifies the board param is only needed for BrainFlow CSV. The description adds contextual meaning around the schema fields, particularly connecting the parameters to the tool's purpose of answering questions about the recording.

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+resource action: 'Open a recording and describe it without starting playback.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool start_replay by noting this tool inspect the recording without playback. This is clear and non-tautological.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before start_replay' and explains what it's used for: seeing how long the file is, what channels it has, and which annotations will be re-emitted as events during replay. This provides explicit when-to-use context with a named alternative tool.

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