get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses an unexpected state-mutating side effect (reaping dead sessions and marking them 'stopped_unexpectedly') inside an otherwise read-shaped tool, and it describes the return payload shape. An agent would otherwise assume this is a pure 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?

Front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and appends the side effect and usage hint in tight follow-ups. The 'Returns' block is useful rather than filler, though the multi-line layout is slightly loose.

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 zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining both the mutation side effect and the return shape ({active, recent}). Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 ('Return the currently-active recording session') plus a secondary reaping behavior. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with list_sessions, which also surfaces sessions, so the agent must infer the difference from 'currently-active' vs. a general list.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule tied to a sibling: 'Call this before start_recording if you want to confirm the slot is free.' This is real when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention list_sessions as an alternative for broader session history.

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