Starts background burst capture and event streaming on an Android device, with results collected by record_stop. Use it to monitor UI states or changes over time.
后台连拍+状态流开始（record_stop 收结果）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: capture runs in the background and it is a start/stop pair requiring record_stop to finish. It is silent on whether the recording persists, resource cost, concurrency limits, or failure behavior.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the start action and its terminating sibling are the first things read. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter leave the agent without enough to call this correctly beyond the start/stop pairing. Return-value retrieval, interval semantics, and lifecycle behavior are all 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 single 'interval' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no default documented in the schema body, yet the description never mentions it or its unit (seconds?). With a coverage gap this large the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 a specific action (start) on a specific resource (background burst capture + state stream), and explicitly marks the terminal counterpart 'record_stop 收结果'. This lets an agent separate it from siblings like events.capture/snapshot/tail, though what the stream actually records is left implicit.
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 'record_stop 收结果' implies this must be paired with events.record_stop to retrieve output, which is usable routing context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs events.capture or events.tail, and no indication of prerequisites or duration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.