rec_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does contribute scope detail — that results span both live session recordings and files on disk — which the annotations do not express. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how the two categories are combined.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is a fragment with no leading verb and its noun phrase is slightly loose ('recordings of this session' vs. recordings of the session). Brevity here tips toward under-specification rather than efficient front-loading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and a no-arg read-only list needs little prose. Still, the description leaves an agent unsure how this list relates to rec_status, rec_scan, or rec_profile_list, which matters given the dense rec_* sibling cluster.

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 the schema cannot carry any additional meaning and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 fragment names the resource and its two scopes (live session recordings and on-disk recording files), which is informative. But it never states a verb such as 'list' or 'enumerate', and it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like rec_status, rec_profile_list, rec_scan, or rec_read, which a reader could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other rec_* listing/status tools, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the discovery step before rec_read or rec_export.

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