sonic_save_recording

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action without explaining side effects like file overwriting, blocking behavior, or error handling if no recording exists. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential usage and behavior details, so while efficient, it is not appropriately informative.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It fails to mention requirements (e.g., active recording), the role of the timeout parameters, and whether the operation is blocking or may overwrite files. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves critical gaps.

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 description mentions none of the three parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify the meaning of output_path, collect_ms, or wait_timeout. The output_path parameter's purpose is somewhat inferable from 'WAV file', but no direct explanation is given.

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 action (save) on a specific resource (current Sonic Pi recording) with a clear output format (WAV file). This makes the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sonic_record_file or sonic_start_recording, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, such as requiring an active recording or after calling stop_recording. It also doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. The use of 'current' creates only a weak implication, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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