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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully characterizes the results as optional, approximate, and secondary evidence, and names the underlying tools (ffmpeg, tesseract), which hints at cost/quality. However, it says nothing about runtime cost of OCR, pagination/limits, or what a result looks like, and there is no output schema to cover that 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the conditional usage note and the evidence-quality caveat. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and result-quality but omits the meaning of threshold/max_scenes and any notion of return shape or cost. Adequate but with clear gaps given the structured fields do little of the work.

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?

Schema coverage is only 25% and two of four parameters (threshold, max_scenes) have no semantic description anywhere. The description does add real meaning for 'ocr' by saying it is optional keyframe OCR via tesseract, partially compensating, but leaves the tuning parameters unexplained.

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 resource (scene-cut timestamps / fallback anchors for a completed take) and the mechanism (ffmpeg scene cuts, optional tesseract OCR). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the recording_timeline sibling by framing itself as the fallback when no timeline stream exists.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when no timeline stream was published for the take') and an explicit exclusion/limitation ('scene cuts are secondary evidence, never the sync source'). The agent knows exactly when to reach for this versus the timeline tool.

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

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 async behavior ('Returns immediately'), the default silent-artifact semantics, format/rate behavior, that the cursor is always captured, and a real prerequisite (the driving tool server must publish timeline streams for narration anchors). It omits permission/auth needs and failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default format, then workflow, then the prerequisite. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'pointer cursor is always included' note is a slight aside that could fold into the behavioral line.

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 6-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the async start/stop/poll model, default artifact behavior, format and region options, and the timeline dependency. It stops short of return values or error conditions, but the lifecycle guidance largely compensates.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it frames the artifact as 'silent by default', ties timeline_sources to narration anchors, and restates the GIF constraint, clarifying intent for audio/format/timeline_sources rather than merely echoing enum values.

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 ('Start recording an active output (or a region within it)') and immediately scopes variants (MP4/WebM/GIF). It names and routes to the sibling lifecycle tools (recording_stop, recording_status), so an agent can distinguish it from recording_scenes or recording_voiceover without opening any 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?

Gives clear sequencing: call this, then recording_stop to finish, then poll recording_status until completed or failed. That is strong lifecycle context, but it does not state when NOT to use it or how it relates to peers like recording_scenes/recording_voiceover beyond the stop/status pair.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the phase state machine (idle through failed) and that output varies between live progress and final artifact metadata. However, it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor any polling/rate considerations, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical state list is dense but earns its place by enumerating the exact return domain.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content well by naming phases and distinguishing live vs. final metadata. The main missing element is workflow context (when/how to poll) rather than anything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (source tool and default-to-latest behavior). The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Report the take lifecycle phase') and enumerates the exact phase values, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like recording_timeline, which may also surface progress, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to poll this after recording_start, how often to poll, or whether it competes with recording_timeline. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'lifecycle phase' framing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is asynchronous, that the immediate return is a stopping/processing state rather than the artifact, and that polling recording_status is required. It omits permission requirements and error/duplicate-call behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the follow-up procedure; every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name.

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 explains that the return is an intermediate state and where the real output comes from (recording_status), which is the essential missing piece. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, but for a zero-parameter action this is well covered.

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 the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly 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?

States a specific verb (stop) and resource (the active recording) plus the consequential next step (finalizing the artifact), which cleanly separates it from the sibling recording_start. An agent can tell immediately what this does without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: use it to stop the active recording, and then poll recording_status for the final artifact path and metadata. It does not state the when-not case (e.g., behavior when no recording is active, or whether calling it twice is safe), so it stops short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: monotonic ordering, capture-window filtering, recording-relative timestamps, and the side effect that a sidecar JSON copy is written next to the artifact on completion. It stops short of stating state prerequisites, permissions, or whether the call is safe during an active recording, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded in the first clause, and the three sentences each carry content (what is returned, a usage tip, a side effect). The narration-anchor sentence is slightly tangential but still earns its place as practical guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: recording-relative t_ms, emitting source, compact payload, plus a sidecar artifact. The only omissions are operational prerequisites and volume/pagination expectations for what could be a long event stream.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented there, including its default to the latest take. The description alludes to 'the take's' timeline but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Return) and resource (the take's monotonic event timeline), and scopes it precisely: events from timeline streams, filtered to the capture window. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like recording_scenes or recording_status, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

The description implies when the tool is useful (after a take exists, to obtain a chronological event stream) and hints at a downstream use ('Use event ids as narration anchors'). However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, and never states whether the take must be stopped or can still be recording.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async phase, the required polling via recording_status, and a media-type limitation. It stops short of stating permission requirements, what happens to any existing audio track, or failure/partial-alignment behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the workflow/limitation follow. Jargon ('muxes', 'narrating') compresses well but borders on under-explaining for a non-expert agent.

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 an 8-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow shape and the async contract but leaves several parameters and the return/result behavior unaddressed. Adequate to attempt a correct call, thin on the details needed to call it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description has to compensate and only partly does: it clarifies that segments carry prose plus timeline anchors or an explicit at_ms, and that captions can be burned. The enum/general parameters (fit, engine, voice, tail_ms, offset_ms) are left to the schema's bare names.

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 ('Attach a scripted narration track to a completed take') and then spells out the actual mechanism: synthesize speech, align to anchors, mux over the video stream. This is distinct enough from recording_scenes/timeline that an agent can route to it without opening a 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?

Gives clear operating context ('completed take', async 'narrating' phase, 'poll recording_status') and one hard exclusion ('GIF cannot carry audio'). It does not name alternatives for cases where narration is not the right call, but the preconditions and follow-up workflow are explicit enough to act on.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating diagnostic read, and the enumeration of what it surfaces partially substitutes for the absent output schema. However, it never explicitly states that it is read-only/side-effect free or describes any caveats about when the reported state may be stale.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then lists what is inspected. It is efficient, though the trailing enumeration of five items is dense and mixes distinct output categories rather than prioritizing them.

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-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the categories of information returned, so an agent knows what to expect. It falls short only on when-to-use and on explicit confirmation of side-effect-free behavior.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema correctly declares an empty object with additionalProperties false.

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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates the resources returned: active take, stream/recording directories, ingest streams, capture outputs, and narration binaries. It is clear what the tool does, though the name 'seshat_info' is opaque and the description does not distinguish this inspection tool from the sibling recording_status, whose scope likely overlaps.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as recording_status or recording_timeline. Usage is only implied by the word 'Inspect', and no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are stated.

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