Pagebolt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: 'Costs 3 API requests. Saves to disk.' It also explains practical constraints like step limits (5-15 ideal, max 50) and performance considerations (zoom adds encoding time). However, it doesn't cover error handling, timeouts, or what happens on failure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, followed by key features and best practices. While slightly verbose due to the detailed best practices, every sentence adds value (e.g., cost, saving behavior, usage tips). No wasted words.

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 high complexity (20 parameters, nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It covers the tool's purpose, key behaviors, usage guidelines, and practical constraints. However, it doesn't explain the output format details (e.g., file location behavior beyond 'Saves to disk') or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'pace parameter handles timing' and 'zoom' considerations, but most parameter details are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Record a professional demo video of a multi-step browser automation sequence.' It specifies the output format (MP4/WebM/GIF), key features (cursor highlighting, click effects, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' or 'generate_pdf' by focusing on video recording of sequences.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'BEST PRACTICE: Keep videos concise (5-15 action steps). Do NOT add wait steps between every action — the pace parameter handles timing. Only use wait for page loads or narration holds. Do NOT use zoom unless the user explicitly asks for it.' It gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, including alternatives (using pace instead of wait steps).

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