get_record_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Read back' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the list of returned state categories adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state that no settings are modified or describe any access requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with a manual reference and a concise enumeration of returned state. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

Given the low complexity, no parameters, and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation and lists the returned state categories. The only gap is that it does not route the agent relative to sibling tools like configure_record or get_status.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The empty input schema is fully covered by its own structure, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read back') and names the exact resource ('waveform record/playback state'), then enumerates the state categories it returns. This clearly distinguishes it from configure_record and other status tools without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

It states what the tool reads but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives such as configure_record or get_status. The implied usage is only that it retrieves record/playback status.

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