meet_v2_list_recordings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing recordings but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output includes (e.g., format, metadata). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the API version and core purpose ('List recordings for a conference record'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., pagination, sorting), output format, error handling, and dependencies. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively beyond the basic parameter.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'conference_record_name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required for the listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra context (e.g., how to obtain the name) is provided.

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 action ('List recordings') and the target resource ('for a conference record'), with the API version context ('Meet API v2 GA'). It distinguishes from siblings like meet_v2_get_recording (singular) and meet_v2_list_transcripts (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like meet_v2_list_participants, though the resource specificity helps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a conference record from meet_v2_list_conference_records first), exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools. It assumes context but offers no explicit usage instructions.

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