recording_report

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

The description says the tool 'also writes the HTML report into the recording folder', which is a filesystem side effect, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true – a direct inconsistency that the agent should be aware of. To its credit the description does disclose the write (and that idempotentHint=false follows, since repeated runs rewrite the report), but the conflict with the annotation prevents a higher score.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by an enumerated payload list and the report-write note. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

For a three-parameter analysis tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description is close to complete: it names the findings categories, the chart peaks, the top queries, and the report artifact. The only missing piece is any note about error conditions or behavior on an empty/partial recording.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but 'optionally for a period (e.g. an incident)' adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that from/to define an incident window and are optional, which the RFC 3339 descriptions alone do not convey. The folder parameter's provenance is already handled in the schema.

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 and resource ('Analyse a recording') and then enumerates exactly what the analysis produces: time coverage, gaps, episodes, chart peaks, top queries. No sibling tool (list_recordings, compare, query) could be confused with this, and the agent knows the scope before 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?

'Optionally for a period (e.g. an incident)' hints at the scoping use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_recordings, compare, or query, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a recording must first be identified). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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