Capture Motion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions Playwright video and motion evidence, but does not describe output behavior, file-saving side effects, default duration/video embedding, or safety implications. It is not misleading, but it is sparse for a non-trivial capture tool.

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 tightly written sentence front-loads the action, object, and use condition. No filler, no redundancy, and it earns its place.

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?

Although the tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, the schema itself is rich (100% coverage) and includes output hints such as includeVideo embedding WebM in the MCP response. The description establishes the use case succinctly; together with the schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though the prose alone would be incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond conceptual triggers like 'animations' and 'scrolling,' which lightly echo scrollDuringCapture and related fields. The schema already documents all parameters thoroughly.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('short rendered page motion evidence with Playwright video'), with explicit scope ('when animations, transitions, scrolling, or dynamic media matter'). This distinguishes it from static tools like capture_page and other siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'when animations, transitions, scrolling, or dynamic media matter.' It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it misses the full 5 criterion.

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