get_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses what is returned (signed URL, expiry, duration, transcript) and what is not (audio bytes). This is significant behavioral context. It doesn't cover errors or permissions, but for a read-only metadata retrieval, this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide key details. No redundant or filler text. Every word adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description fills that gap by naming the returned fields (signed URL, expiry, duration, transcript) and the explicit exclusion. It is complete for a simple metadata tool, though it doesn't discuss potential error conditions or how timezone affects the response.

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 both parameters (call_sid, timezone) have descriptive schema text. The tool description adds context about return values but does not meaningfully enhance the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and clearly defines the resource ('recording metadata for a call'). It further specifies the exact return contents (signed URL with expiry, duration, transcript) and explicitly excludes audio bytes, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_call or search_calls.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's for a specific call and provides metadata only. The phrase 'Never returns audio bytes' hints at when not to use it, but no explicit alternatives are mentioned (e.g., 'for call details, use get_call'). This is adequate but lacks direct guidance.

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