get_questionnaire_audio_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'where supported by the active Headquarters build' warns about conditional availability. It does not mention permissions, error behavior, or the exact shape of the returned settings, but the read-only behavior is sufficiently conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, and the availability caveat.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource and a key availability constraint. However, it leaves the agent without detail on what the returned audio-recording settings look like, how the optional profile affects the request, or what happens when the build does not support the feature.

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 only 50%: questionnaire_identity is documented in the schema, but the optional 'profile' parameter has no description. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented profile parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('questionnaire audio-recording settings'), and a scope condition ('where supported by the active Headquarters build'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_questionnaire_audio_recording and get_assignment_audio_recording.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to read questionnaire-level audio-recording settings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the verbose sibling names.

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