search_recordings

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

Without annotations, the description adds context about search scope (title+description) and returned status fields. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, sorting, or rate limits, which are important for a search tool.

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 succinct sentences: first stating the purpose, second describing the return value. Every word is necessary and information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, search scope, and returned status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., default limit, ordering), but overall it's adequate.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value by clarifying that the query matches title and description, and that results include status fields. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Clipy screen recordings', specifying that it matches by keyword in title and description. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_recordings' by focusing on keyword-based search.

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 usage when you need to find a recording to read by keyword, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_recording' for known IDs. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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