record_site_motion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (inline filmstrip JPEG and .webm path) and the requirement for optional playwright and ffmpeg-static dependencies, but it does not mention potential side effects, failure modes if dependencies are missing, or operational details like recording duration.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then efficiently covers output format and dependency requirements.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return values and dependency caveat, while the input schema fully covers all three parameters. Some minor operational details (e.g., recording duration or behavior on heavy sites) are left out, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('short motion-through video of a live website'), with concrete examples like preloader, scroll-triggered, and hover/cursor animations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'capture_live_site', but the motion-video focus makes the purpose reasonably 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 the tool is for capturing dynamic motion and animations on a live site, which signals when it would be appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'capture_live_site' or 'analyze_page_structure', so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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