list_recordings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the store ownership model (who reads/writes it) which is genuinely useful context, but doesn't disclose return format, ordering guarantee details beyond 'newest first', pagination behavior, or what happens with the limit parameter when recordings exceed it.

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?

Two focused paragraphs, no redundancy. The second paragraph adds valuable architectural context about store ownership that earns its place. Could arguably shave some prose but it's tight overall.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, which reduces the burden on the description. However, for a listing tool in a system with many siblings, some guidance on how it relates to list_sessions/list_boards or when to use inspect_recording would improve completeness. The store-ownership context partially compensates.

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 both parameters (limit and subject) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List recordings... newest first') and clearly states the scope (eeg-mcp's own metadata store). It distinguishes from siblings partly by clarifying this is a metadata store listing, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives like list_sessions or inspect_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 first sentence establishes clear usage context (list metadata, newest first), but there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The second paragraph adds useful context about store ownership and compatibility but doesn't name alternative tools for different listing needs.

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