bowire.auth-recording.list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose security-relevant behavior: recordings are credential-free and 'the credential value is never returned'. It also gives the return shape. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or an explicit read-only framing, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the purpose and scope come first, the return shape second, and the credential-safety note closes. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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-optional-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and a credential-safety guarantee. Only ordering/pagination and an explicit read-only statement are missing, which is minor for this complexity.

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% and the single 'workspace' parameter is already documented as 'Empty = the shared, unscoped store'. The description adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List captured auth recordings') plus a distinguishing qualifier ('credential-free', 'that a mock's auth requirement can resolve by id'). An agent can tell this apart from bowire.auth-recording.capture, .capture-flow, and .remove without opening a schema.

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?

The phrase 'that a mock's auth requirement can resolve by id' implies the use case (find a recording id to wire into a mock), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g. vs bowire.auth-recording.capture). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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