wpf_get_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name — the output uses 'stable selectors instead of session handles' — but it is silent on permissions, whether a recording must be running, error behavior, and the shape/size of the returned JSON.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents come first and the selector caveat last. It is appropriately sized, though slightly dense in phrasing.

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 zero-param getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what comes back more concretely. It names the two payload components but not their structure, and omits preconditions for calling it, leaving an agent to guess at the operational context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter information is missing because none exists.

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 ('Get') plus the resource returned (current recording state and versioned workflow JSON), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wpf_record, but the noun 'recording state/JSON' clearly separates a read of the recording from starting one.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent must infer this is meant to be called after or alongside wpf_record to retrieve the captured workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus wpf_replay, wpf_report, or wpf_export_test, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a recording must be active) are given.

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