Get Recorded Actions [Pro]

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is non-destructive ('without stopping'), which is a positive behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it returns data or how it handles empty recordings.

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 one short sentence with a 'useful for' clarification. Every word earns its place, and it is highly efficient.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks context on what the 'recorded actions' are (e.g., format, scope) and how to interpret the output.

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, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Schema description coverage is 100% (none needed). The description adds no parameter info but does not need to.

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 action: 'view the actions recorded so far without stopping the recording.' It identifies the tool as a read operation for inspecting captured actions. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'start_test_recording' or 'stop_test_recording' beyond the 'without stopping' mention.

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 it is used during an active recording to inspect captured actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'stop_test_recording' or 'start_test_recording'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have an active recording) or when not to use it.

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