screen_recording_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a status, without mentioning edge cases, required permissions, or what the status values represent. It doesn't even explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, though 'Return' implies it.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple status tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, the absence of any usage context or parameter detail means the agent may not know valid device values or when to invoke this tool. The low complexity does not compensate for the lack of guidance and parameter semantics.

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 does not explain the 'device' parameter beyond the input schema's bare type. It says 'for a device' but doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., from list_devices) or any constraints. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'active screen recording status' for 'a device', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like start_screen_recording and stop_screen_recording. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical scenarios, such as checking before stopping a recording, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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