get_recording_status

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.