recording_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it reports recording state and written amount, but doesn't disclose what 'written' means (bytes? samples? chunks?), whether this is a safe read operation, whether it returns raw data, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is a meaningful gap in transparency.

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?

One concise sentence, zero wasted words. It efficiently states both what it reports (recording on/off) and the additional detail (amount written). Appropriately sized for a single-parameter read-style tool.

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 a rich sibling context (start_recording, stop_recording, list_recordings, inspect_recording), an output schema, and only one fully-documented parameter. The description covers the essence adequately. For a status-check tool, this is mostly complete, but it falls slightly short on explaining what 'amount written' means and how it relates to the recording lifecycle—details the output schema might clarify but the description doesn't contextually frame.

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 the single parameter (session_id) is fully described in the schema as 'The session to check.' The description tool-level explains the purpose of the check (recording status and written amount), which adds context beyond the schema's minimal 'session to check' phrasing. With full schema coverage at the baseline of 3, the description's clarification of what will be reported adds modest value.

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 what the tool does: reports whether a session is recording and how much has been written. The verb 'Report' plus the resource 'session' and the outcome (recording status + written amount) is specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like stream_status or inspect_recording, but it does name its specific function clearly.

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 conveys when to use it (when you need to know whether a session is recording and how much was written). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from stream_status (which likely relates to streaming rather than recording) or inspect_recording (which might provide deeper detail). The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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