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 adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), pagination, and the presence of an 'on_disk_total' indicator. It does not, however, say what happens when offset exceeds the result set or how output is shaped, so it adds value but not rich context.

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 compact sentence with no wasted preamble, which is good, but the parenthetical-and-semicolon structure is tangled and the final clause about Scope is not front-loaded or self-explanatory. Density comes at the cost of parseability.

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-value detail is not required, and the read-only annotations cover safety. What remains missing for a two-parameter, paged listing tool is basic pagination semantics and the minimal signal of when this list should be used versus the many other rec_* tools, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't: 'paged: limit/offset' merely restates the parameter names without clarifying units, defaults (30/0), maximums, or whether offset counts records or pages. The 'on_disk_total' mention describes an output field, not a parameter.

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 does convey a specific verb-and-resource combination (listing recordings of the current session plus recording files on disk, newest first), but the phrasing is muddled – the trailing clause 'a recording with Scope: its scope state' reads like a fragment and is hard to parse. It never names a sibling (rec_read, rec_status, rec_scan) to distinguish this list operation from them.

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, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of when an agent should prefer rec_list over rec_read, rec_status, or rec_scan. Usage is only inferable from the word 'list', which is the minimum, not guidance.

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