edgegate_recorder_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only' and details the data returned, which is a strong behavioral indicator. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but the read-only nature and output composition are clearly communicated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence using a colon to list key output categories, followed by the behavioral note 'Read-only.' Every phrase carries meaning, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a solid outline of the return values (counts, breakdown categories, integrity details, devices). It covers the essential aspects for an agent to understand what the tool offers. It lacks exact field names or formatting, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 50%, with device_id already described. The description adds context that the tool is per-workspace, partially clarifying workspace_id's role. However, it does not elaborate on parameter types or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it only marginally compensates for the missing workspace_id description.

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 what the tool returns: recorded-event counts, replay/divergence breakdown, hash-chain integrity, and devices reporting in. It specifically names 'Field Recorder status' and immediately distinguishes it from sibling status/check tools by scope and content. The 'Read-only' tag reinforces the query nature, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edgegate_check_status or edgegate_list_devices. The description implies it is for field recorder status, but it does not state conditions or exclusions. No alternatives or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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