rec_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a *live* (current, non-historical) status view and lists the observable fields, but says nothing about scoping, auth, or latency of the live read.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource is named first and the payload follows. Every token earns its place.

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 the description's burden, and the annotations carry the read-safety profile. For a one-param read tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the id's semantics and sibling routing left implicit.

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 single parameter is uncovered (0% schema description coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so only implicitly by saying 'one recording', implying id is a recording identifier, but gives no format or source for that id.

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?

States a specific verb (status) and resource (one recording) and enumerates the returned signals: events, rate, drops, armed/triggered, last value per symbol. This cleanly separates it from list/aggregate siblings like rec_list and rec_stats, though the distinction from rec_snapshot or rec_stats is not spelled out.

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 reach for rec_status over rec_stats, rec_snapshot, or rec_read. 'Live' hints at real-time polling but nothing states the condition that selects this tool versus its many rec_* siblings.

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