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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the read-oriented nature via 'Get' and describes exactly what is returned, including the conditional session-details behavior. It could mention side-effects/perms explicitly, but for a zero-parameter getter the disclosed return contract is solid.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact enumeration of outputs. No filler or repeated schema content.

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-input status retrieval tool with no output schema, the description communicates the primary return dimensions. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though 'current session details' is slightly underspecified and could leave an agent unsure of exact fields.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully describes the input contract. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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?

Uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, 'current recording status', and enumerates the meaningful return categories: active flag, session details, and past-recording count. This clearly distinguishes it from start/stop mutations and list_recordings, which would be used for past recording details.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus start_recording, list_recordings, or stop_recording. The word 'current' and the return fond focus imply it is for checking live state, but the description leaves the comparison to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a listing (implying read-only), covers both current session and persistent manifest, and specifies the output fields. This is more informative than a minimal description, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or ordering.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the field list adds concrete value without 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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its data scope. Minor details like ordering or empty-result behavior are absent, but they are not critical for this tool's completeness.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully documented in the schema with a default value and meaning. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('List all recordings') and resource ('recordings captured in this session and from the persistent manifest'). It also enumerates the included fields (file path, duration, size, timestamp), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_recording or get_recording_status.

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 verb 'List' and scope ('all recordings') imply the appropriate use case: enumerating existing recordings rather than starting/stopping or checking status. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the implementation backend (FFmpeg avfoundation) and that the output includes index values usable by start_recording. It does not explicitly state that listing is side-effect-free, though 'List' and the discovery framing imply a read-only operation.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: declare the function, connect the output to start_recording, and provide a when-to-run condition. No filler or repeated schema information.

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?

The definition is complete for a zero-parameter discovery tool: it states what is listed, the platform, how the results are used, and when to invoke it. Without an output schema, the description still conveys that index values are returned, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate because there are no parameters to explain.

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 action ('List') with a clear resource ('all available screen and audio capture devices') and platform context ('FFmpeg avfoundation'). This distinguishes it from list_recordings, which lists recording files, and clarifies the device-discovery role. The instruction to use returned index values in start_recording reinforces the tool's purpose.

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?

Gives explicit sequential guidance: run first when unsure which screen_index to use, and use the returned index values when calling start_recording. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different lifecycle/listing operations, so the stated guidance is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals side effects (captures desktop, produces a video file), scope of capture (all connected screens, primary by default), the single-active-session constraint, the return contract (session ID and output path), and the OS-level permission requirement. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., behavior when permission is missing or a recording is already active), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, scope/mechanism, concurrency constraint, return values, and permission prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero redundancy or repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what the tool does, its system requirements, the active-session limit, and the meaningful return values (session ID and output path). Edge behavior (errors when permission is denied or a recording is already active, whether the call blocks) is undisclosed, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-level information. The schema descriptions are notably rich (defaults, enum tradeoffs, CRF mapping, cross-references to list_screen_devices, path-resolution rules), but that is credit to the schema, not the description under evaluation.

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 and resource ('Start recording the full macOS desktop to a video file') and differentiates itself from its siblings: starting contrast with stop_recording, and the recording/device focus contrasts with get_recording_status, list_recordings, and list_screen_devices. The scope detail ('Records all connected screens (by default the primary display)') and mechanism (FFmpeg avfoundation) make the tool's identity 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?

Provides clear invocation context: a concurrency precondition ('Only one recording can be active at a time') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires Screen Recording permission granted to this terminal app'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the single-active-recording constraint effectively tells an agent to check get_recording_status first, and the schema cross-references list_screen_devices.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the graceful FFmpeg shutdown signal, the waiting behavior for file finalization, and the returned session details. This gives the agent useful expectations about the tool's execution behavior beyond merely saying 'stop recording'.

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 concise at three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds valuable information: what it stops, how it stops it, and what it returns. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the mechanism, and the return details well. It could mention what happens if no recording is active, but the level of completeness is otherwise strong for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no ambiguity in the input. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on behavior and output.

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 specific action ('stop'), the resource ('currently active screen recording'), and distinguishes it from siblings like start_recording, get_recording_status, and list_recordings. The verb and resource are unambiguous, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 clear context by specifying that it acts on the currently active recording, implying it should be used when a recording is in progress. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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