bowire.record.list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the backing file (~/.bowire/recordings.json), the summary-only return (step bodies omitted), and the fields exposed. It does not state permissions or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only enumeration that gap is minor.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the caveat about omitted step bodies. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, step count, captured at). The only soft spot is the shaky '(planned)' reference to record.replay, which muddies the completeness of the routing story.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description instead spends its space on output shape, which is the right allocation.

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 (List) and resource (Bowire recordings), plus the storage location and the exact fields returned. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling record.replay tool, which handles detail retrieval, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

Tells the agent when this tool suffices (summary listing) and where to go for step bodies, which is genuine routing guidance. It loses a point because record.replay is described as '(planned)' even though it appears as a live sibling tool, leaving the fallback path ambiguous.

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