recorder_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only status query by describing what is reported (recording state, microphone, call apps, processing progress), but never explicitly states it has no side effects or how current the status snapshot is. For a zero-parameter status tool the risk is low, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact clause that front-loads the core question (is it recording) before the secondary facets. No filler, though it reads as a sentence fragment without an explicit action verb.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema that carries the return-value detail, the description only needs to frame what the status covers, which it does. Nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; schema coverage is 100% and empty.

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 names the specific resource (the recorder) and enumerates what status facets are reported: whether it is recording, which microphone, which call apps, and how far processing has progressed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_records or get_record. The only weakness is that the verb is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer from the name and content that this is a status check, but nothing tells it when this is preferable to, say, list_records for checking recording output.

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