record_site_motion

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: what the capture covers, that it returns an inline filmstrip JPEG plus a .webm path, and that it requires the optional playwright and ffmpeg-static dependencies. It does not state duration limits, timeouts, or failure behavior for heavy sites, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads purpose and scope, the second covers output and dependency requirements. No filler, and the most important information leads.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return format (filmstrip JPEG plus .webm path) and runtime prerequisites. With 100% schema coverage the parameters are handled elsewhere. The only real gap is sibling/usage discrimination, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 explains url, frames, viewport, and waitStrategy fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how long a 'short' recording is or how frame count affects runtime), so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource — recording a short motion-through video of a live website — and enumerates the exact animation types captured (preloader, scroll-triggered, hover/cursor). It is unambiguous on its own, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings like capture_live_site or watch_site, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as capture_live_site (static capture) or watch_site (monitoring). An agent must guess which recording/capture sibling fits a given request.

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