get_recording

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely delivers: it spells out the pipeline stages (uploading → transcoding → transcribing → annotating → ready) and explains that a null expectedResult means nobody stated an expectation. It stops short of covering failure behavior for an unknown id or permission requirements, which is the remaining gap for an annotation-free 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 payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and the interpretive guidance follows, so an agent reading only the opening clause still knows what it gets. The expectedResult explanation is a little long-winded but each clause adds usable meaning, so it is not padding.

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 takes on the job of describing the returned fields, including the stage progression and the null semantics of expectedResult. What is missing is error handling and confirmation that it is a read-only operation, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 already documented in the schema as a slug or full URL. The description adds no further meaning about id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 and resource ('Get a single recording's metadata') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: title, description, duration, pipeline stage, artifact statuses, and expectedResult. Listing statuses of transcript/summary/key moments rather than their content implicitly separates it from get_transcript, get_summary, and get_key_moments.

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?

It documents how to interpret expectedResult once you have it, and the field list implies it is the metadata/status lookup rather than the content fetch. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over get_transcript, get_summary, or get_key_moments, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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