recording_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 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.