recording_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and covers the key ground: all three possible states, what 'stale' means, and how the stale file will be removed on the next start_recording. It does not explicitly promise that the call is side-effect-free, but the verb 'Informa' implies a read-only status check.

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 a one-line purpose and then gives a compact Returns block covering every possible outcome. There is no filler or redundancy, and every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 no-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it defines each return state, the meaning of 'stale', and the recovery behavior. An agent can confidently invoke it and interpret the result correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema already documents this completely with 0 properties. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 first sentence states the tool's purpose and domain ('Informa se há uma gravação em andamento'), and the Returns section enumerates exactly what it reports. It is clear enough to distinguish from the start/stop siblings, but it never explicitly names the sibling alternatives.

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 stated: this is clearly the state-checking tool alongside start_recording and stop_recording, and it mentions that start_recording handles stale state. However, it gives no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this to start/stop' guidance.

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