list_recordings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that with the sampling cadence (every 15 s for 1 or 24 h) and the return ordering (newest first), both of which affect how results should be interpreted. It stops short of disclosing volume or pagination behavior for large profiles.

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 compact sentences with the core resource and scope front-loaded and the fallback tool mentioned second. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: read-only access, sampling granularity, ordering, and the alternate route for external recordings. Only pagination or volume expectations are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single optional parameter tool.

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 only parameter's description already explains that an empty value lists recordings of every profile the caller may use. The description reiterates the profile-scoped framing but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (recordings kept with a profile's reports) and its scope, including the sampling characteristics and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from recording_report by noting that tool handles recordings made elsewhere, but the listing verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 explicitly names recording_report as the alternative path for recordings made elsewhere, giving the agent a concrete routing condition. It does not address when not to use this tool broadly (e.g., other listing tools like list_profiles or history), but the key sibling relationship is covered.

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