voice_memos_get_recording

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'capped and read-only', which clarifies the behavioral trait of truncation (via max_chars) and reinforces safety. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the complex ecosystem of sibling tools, this description provides sufficient context for a get-by-ID operation. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. It could mention what metadata includes, but is mostly complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies that 'handle' is opaque and 'capped' implies max_chars limits the response. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameters or their formats beyond that.

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 the tool gets 'exact local Voice Memo metadata/transcript' using an 'opaque handle', specifying it is 'capped and read-only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like voice_memos_search and voice_memos_export_audio.

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 implies usage when you have an opaque handle for a voice memo and want metadata/transcript. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of 'exact' and 'handle' suggests prerequisites.

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