oc_recording_status

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail about returning trajectory bundle metadata when enabled, but does not specify what 'enabled' means or the metadata structure. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information. However, it omits the structure of the return value, which could be helpful for an agent to process 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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'whether session recording is active', adding 'including trajectory bundle metadata when enabled'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like oc_recording_start/stop/list.

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 a status check but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oc_recording_list or oc_recording_start/stop. More context on usage context would improve clarity.

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