studio_recovery_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it says the tool does not edit files, launch a host, detect native process idleness, repair files, or authorize replay. It omits operational details such as permissions or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds report contents, exclusions, and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes and there is no redundant framing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the behavioral boundaries are clear. However, the required job_id is completely unaddressed, which leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The required job_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. For a job-scoped recovery report, the description should explain what job_id identifies or where it comes from, but it provides no parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect durable recovery evidence. It also identifies what the report contains (unresolved intents and preserved run directories) and distinguishes the tool from reconciliation by saying it does not authorize automatic replay.

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 gives clear context for use: inspect host and artifacts before explicit reconciliation. It also states exclusions (no idle-process detection, repair, or automatic replay), though it does not explicitly name the sibling studio_reconcile_job alternative.

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