record_terminal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states that this host does not start a recorder, that missing ffmpeg causes an error, and that when ffmpeg is present it only returns a command and writes no video file. These non-obvious behavioral traits are fully disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and then presents the key conditional behaviors in short, focused sentences. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the input schema.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main behaviors, side effects, and error condition. It does lack explicit sibling-comparison or usage recommendations, but the core call context is adequately specified.

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% and the schema gives no description for script, so the description must compensate. The description adds that the parameter is a bash script, which is useful, but it does not specify whether script should be file content, a file path, or any formatting requirements.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a bash script as a terminal demo.' It then clarifies the actual behavior, which is to return a command rather than record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like run or write_file, but the unique purpose is clear.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a recording command rather than an actual recording on this host. However, it never explicitly says 'use this instead of X' or names alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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