list_recordings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: the result ordering (newest first) and the inclusion of manual recordings. It does not state pagination behavior, whether there is a maximum page size, or the read-only nature beyond the implied 'history' framing.

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?

One short sentence with the key facts (resource, ordering, scope) front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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-value explanation is not required, and the scope/ordering notes give context. However, for a paged list tool with an undocumented limit parameter, the description should say how to retrieve more history and how it differs from recording_status.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, which only has a default of 20 in the schema. The description never explains what limit controls, what happens when it is omitted or exceeded, or how to page through older history, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (recording history) and its ordering (newest first), and the scope note 'including recordings the user made by hand' implies auto-generated recordings are also included, which distinguishes it from status-oriented siblings like recording_status. It reads as a noun phrase without an explicit verb, but the resource is 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus recording_status (current state) or list_targets, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the historical listing tool from the name alone.

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