get_recording_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether it returns real-time status, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with recording state.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of interacting with recording status (likely involving state checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recording status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, duration, errors) or what the return values are, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'pageId' documented as 'Page ID (uses active page if not specified)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Get current recording status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current recording status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_recording' or 'stop_recording' beyond the obvious action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be called before or after recording operations, or if it's needed for monitoring ongoing recordings. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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