recordings_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the shape of what is returned (aggregate counts and timestamps) which signals this is a non-destructive read. It says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the scan is expensive, so the behavioral picture remains thin.

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?

A single tight phrase with the most informative element (segment count) front-loaded and zero filler. It is under-specified as a sentence rather than overly verbose.

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 zero-parameter read tool whose return fields are already declared in the output schema, describing the returned values is somewhat redundant but harmless, and nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to document and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

Names the concrete data it reports (segment count, disk use, oldest/newest recording), so an agent knows this is a recording-storage summary tool rather than a clip lister like motion_clips. However, it uses a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the operation itself ('reports'/'summarizes') is only implied.

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 parenthetical '(retention visibility)' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings such as motion_clips or clip_frame, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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