list-session-recordings

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds that the tool lists recordings 'based on specified filters' and notes the date filter requirement and format, providing some operational context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling, which are relevant for a list operation with complex filtering.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence elaborates on filter examples, and the third specifies the date filter requirement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse. A slight improvement could be integrating the date filter note more seamlessly.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and filter scope but lacks details on output format, pagination, error cases, or integration with siblings. For a list tool with extensive filtering, more contextual guidance would enhance completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions filters 'such as URLs, device types, browser, OS, country, city, and more' and specifies that the date filter is required in UTC ISO 8601 format, adding minimal context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide significant additional semantic value.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Microsoft Clarity session recordings based on specified filters.' It includes a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Microsoft Clarity session recordings'), and scope ('based on specified filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (query-analytics-dashboard, query-documentation-resources), which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It mentions that 'The date filter is required,' which is a prerequisite, but offers no context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with other tools in the server. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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