gangtise_record_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or performance implications. The description mentions filtering but does not explain how results are returned or limited. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise, consisting of a context note and a single sentence defining the tool's function. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the date context.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the core functionality but leaves out details on pagination, defaults, and response format. The schema covers many parameters, but the description could provide more behavioral 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 description adds meaning by listing the filtering dimensions (keyword, category, time range), which map to schema parameters. However, it does not cover all parameters (e.g., 'from' and 'spaceTypeList' are not mentioned). Schema already describes 75% of parameters, so the description provides moderate additional value.

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 tool's purpose: querying a list of voice recording transcriptions. It matches the tool name and specifies filtering options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like gangtise_drive_list, but the resource type (records) is distinct enough.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to list recordings) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No explicit exclusionary language is present, leaving the agent to infer.

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