record_state_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Read') and specifies the data returned (roster, take clock, consent), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the snapshot is live/real-time vs cached, whether it requires an active recording session, or what happens if no recording room exists. The read-only nature is clear, but behavioral edge cases are not addressed.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key data fields in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), which likely documents the return shape, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Given the single parameter and simple read operation, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., must a recording room exist? must recording be in progress?) or how this differs from get_session_state_tool, which appears to be a close sibling. These gaps matter for an agent deciding between the two.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'project_path'. The description does not mention project_path at all, leaving the agent to infer that the project path identifies which recording room to read. Since there is only one parameter and the tool name suggests a state tool, this is a minor gap, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's field name.

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 ('Read') and names the resource ('live recording-room snapshot') with concrete contents ('roster, take clock, consent'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_start_tool or record_stop_tool, which are about controlling recording rather than reading state. It loses one point because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the scope is clear enough.

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 this is the tool to call when you need the current recording-room state, and the sibling list shows many state-mutating recording tools (record_start_tool, record_pause_tool, etc.) that it should be preferred over for read-only queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for related state (e.g., get_session_state_tool). The context is implied rather than explicit.

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