recording_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (ok, recording, path, frames, elapsed_seconds) and indicating that the tool reports current activity, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a return value specification. The 'str: JSON' phrasing is slightly awkward but acceptable; overall, every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description adequately covers the behavior. It explains what the tool reports and the shape of the result, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to compensate for schema coverage.

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 ('Report') and resource ('whether a screen recording is currently active'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_screen_recording and stop_screen_recording. It precisely conveys that this is a status query, not a state-changing operation.

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 read-only status-reporting purpose implies when to use this tool—for checking recording state—but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list shows start/stop recording tools, yet the description does not mention them, leaving usage context implicit.

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