record_recovery_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a check result is recorded, but does not reveal behavioral traits such as whether multiple checks can be recorded, idempotency, required permissions, side effects on the recovery session, or rate limits. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to use the tool safely.

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 description is extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by contextual framing, then a clear docstring-style list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous text.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide comprehensive guidance. It lacks information about return values, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing recovery session), error scenarios, and limitations like call frequency. This makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: 'session_id' is identified as the monitoring target, 'passed' clarifies boolean interpretation (check success), and 'notes' is marked optional. This goes beyond the schema's type-only information, though additional details (e.g., format of session_id) could enhance clarity.

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 states the verb 'record' and the specific resource 'post-recovery monitoring check result'. It provides context that this is done after recovery execution to verify print correctness. Among sibling tools like 'plan_print_recovery' and 'complete_print_recovery', this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 usage after recovery execution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_print_recovery' or 'complete_print_recovery'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's place in the recovery workflow.

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