get_recording_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the audit criteria (monotonicity, missing nodes, capability health), but it does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether it has side effects or costs, or what the response contains. The 'get_' prefix implies non-mutating, but the description does not confirm it.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the rest names concrete audit checkpoints. Every word earns its place, making the description efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selecting and invoking it: it names the parameter's role and the audit criteria. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the return format or how to interpret the audit results, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 schema already documents sessionId with 100% coverage as 'Session ID'. The description adds the context that the session is a recording session, but it gives no additional format, constraints, or usage detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Run an automated integrity audit'), a resource ('recording session'), and the specific checks ('sequence monotonicity, missing nodes, and capability health'). It clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar get_diagnostics sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need an automated integrity audit of a recording session. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_diagnostics or get_session, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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