wavexis_screencast

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

The description lists side effects (launching browser backend, navigating to URL, writing frames) which contradict the readOnlyHint annotation (true). The annotation implies no side effects, but the description explicitly states them. This is an annotation contradiction, warranting a score of 1 per guidelines.

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 remarkably concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, and one for side effects/return value. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main action, side effects, and return format. With an output schema available, it does not need to detail the return structure beyond the key names. It is complete for a tool with many parameters and a nested input.

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?

The input schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter, so schema coverage is effectively high. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., that frames are written to output_dir when given), which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as capturing a frame-by-frame screenshot sequence over a duration. It uses a specific verb ('capture') and contrasts with the sibling tool wavexis_screenshot, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool versus wavexis_screenshot ('use wavexis_screenshot for a single still image, or wavexis_screencast when animation or time-series capture is needed'), providing clear alternative guidance.

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