recording_timeline

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.