get_realtime_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not mention whether this is read-only, what the response contains, whether any permissions are required, or how errors behave. 'Get' implies non-mutation, but no meaningful behavioral context is added beyond the tool name.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It front-loads the action and object immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 get-by-id tool, the description plus schema is minimally adequate: the required parameters are all documented. However, there is no output schema and no annotation support, and the description does not describe what 'details' include or how to obtain the recording_id, so the agent is left with a vaguer representation of the returned data.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how the parameters relate or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('Realtime Kit recording details'), so the core purpose is evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_realtime_recordings or get_realtime_session, but the singular 'details' strongly implies a single-record fetch.

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 by the get-vs-list naming pattern: this tool is for retrieving details about one specific recording once the recording_id is known, while list_realtime_recordings is for enumeration. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer the correct selection.

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