recording_status

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

The description discloses the core behavior (status and elapsed time) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect-free. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could benefit from saying 'does not alter recording state'.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundant words or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could be more complete by specifying the return format (e.g., boolean and time string), but it is sufficient for a basic status indicator.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs, needing no further parameter explanation.

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 indicates the tool reports recording status ('Whether a recording is in progress') and duration ('for how long'). It is distinct from sibling tools like start_recording and stop_recording, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to check if a recording is active. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like voicebox_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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