record_window_duration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values (fps defaults to 10) and clarifies what 'system_audio' does, but doesn't cover critical aspects like: whether recording starts immediately, what happens if the window closes mid-recording, file size considerations, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a recording tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and parameter details. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second provides specific parameter information. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between purpose and parameter guidance.

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 recording tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to handle errors, what the MP4 quality/encoding is, or provide usage examples. The description covers basic functionality but leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for two parameters: explaining that 'fps defaults to 10' and clarifying that 'system_audio records global system audio.' However, it doesn't address the other three parameters (window_id, duration_seconds, output_path), leaving their purpose and format undocumented. The partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 window for a fixed duration (seconds) to an MP4.' This specifies the verb (record), resource (window), and output format (MP4). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_window_start' and 'record_window_stop', which appear to be related recording tools with different control mechanisms.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'record_window_start/stop' for continuous recording or 'screenshot_window' for single captures. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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