conduyt_get_call_recording_settings

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the auth requirement, the error response without proper permission, null semantics for iPhone policy, fallback behavior to Twilio policy, and legacy shape interpretation. It also explains exactly what each returned field means, including disclosure and the legacy 'enabled' alias.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then proceeds through line semantics, permission behavior, field meanings, and legacy behavior. It is dense but every block adds useful information for a no-output-schema tool; only the final consent sentence feels slightly ancillary.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape and safety context itself. It does: both line types, null/fallback behavior, applied policy fields, disclosure semantics, and legacy compatibility are all covered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no input semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately spends its space on return-value semantics instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: reading the workspace's call recording policy for both Twilio and iPhone lines. The word 'Read' cleanly separates it from the sibling conduyt_update_call_recording_settings, and the two-line distinction is covered immediately.

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 rather than explicit: the tool is for inspecting policy, and the description adds the permission prerequisite and error behavior. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus conduyt_update_call_recording_settings or other settings-related siblings.

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