desktop_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses technical limits (X11 only, no audio, 10fps, max 1280x720, 1-60s), verification semantics (stop/status return path only after decoding), file lifecycle (deleted on backend close/reconnect/server death), and dependency (optional ffmpeg/ffprobe). This goes beyond basic mutation details.

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 dense yet efficient, with each sentence adding critical information. It opens with the core purpose, then layers constraints, verification behavior, lifecycle, and dependencies without redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (four actions, stateful recording, file persistence) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, constraints, verification, persistence requirements, and external dependencies. It even mentions return paths for stop/status, providing a complete operational picture.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'start, status, stop or delete' mapping to the action enum, 'by ticket' implying recording_id, and '1-60 seconds' hinting at max_seconds. However, it does not explicitly name the parameters or define their exact roles, leaving some inference needed.

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 tool is for explicit temporary screen recording and lists the four actions (start, status, stop, delete) by ticket. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like desktop_observe or desktop_inspect, which are likely for real-time viewing rather than recording.

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 provides context about the recording constraints (temporary, private, bounded) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like desktop_observe. It implies usage for recording sessions but leaves the decision to the agent without direct exclusions or comparisons.

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