Get Recording

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

Goes beyond annotations: explains that fields the API didn't send are simply missing (open-world behavior), that leaving out has_chat skips an extra conference lookup, and that certain fields are bulky and can be omitted. These are useful non-obvious behaviors.

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 dense but wordy. It redundantly lists every field that already appears in the schema enum, and the sentence 'detail is asked for by id, and for the detail' is confusing. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains valuable performance and open-world notes.

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 get-by-detail tool with a full output schema, the description is very complete. It covers participant list semantics, field filtering, missing-field behavior, conference_key uniqueness, download_url usage, and even performance implications. No critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by noting that the last four fields are bulky and can be excluded via fields, and by clarifying that participant_fields narrows each participant object.

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 specifies a get-by-id operation returning recording detail including participants. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that conference_key is only available on this endpoint and download_url is the best-quality file for download_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?

It implies when to use this endpoint (e.g., when conference_key is needed, or full participant info) and how download_url relates to download_recording. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_recordings for broader queries, but the context is clear.

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