Read RPC recording

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds useful context by specifying the content of the returned records ('parameters, outcome, timing, and client routing') and the 'bounded' nature. However, it does not disclose ordering, default limit behavior, or how sinceSequence affects results, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and immediately stating the object and key details. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content reasonably well but omits parameter behavior and any relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that an agent must resolve through schema constraints or trial, especially without output schema guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention 'limit' or 'sinceSequence' at all, and 'bounded' only vaguely hints at limitation. The agent must infer semantics from parameter names and constraints, which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('recorded calls') and scope ('bounded'), and lists content areas: parameters, outcome, timing, and client routing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recording_control or replay_recording, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that replay_recording is for replaying, or that recording_control manages recordings, nor does it provide any exclusions or context for selection. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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