record_bag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the countdown starts only after the first message, synchronous mode has a hard timeout of duration_sec + 15s, and silent background recording remains active until stop_record_bag(handle). It also warns about the hang risk, which is critical for correct usage.

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 well-structured with a clear main statement followed by behavioral details and a usage sequence. Every sentence provides necessary information without being verbose. The warning about synchronous hang is concise yet impactful.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations) and an output schema, the description is complete for effective use. It covers the core workflow, background/sync behavior, timeouts, and a step-by-step inject-then-record process. The output schema handles return values, so the description needn't detail them. It even notes the need to confirm the returned handle, which ties into the workflow.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains background, trigger_on_topic, duration_sec, and implicitly topics. However, mode, output_path, and confirm_token are not explained. The provided parameter semantics are valuable and cover the most critical parameters, but the gap prevents a perfect 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 rosbag for specified topics over a set duration.' It also specifies the background mode for async recording, distinguishing it from synchronous recording. The mention of stop_record_bag(handle) and inject_signal(...) in the usage sequence provides context that differentiates it from sibling tools like capture_topic_sync.

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 explicit guidance on when to use background=True vs synchronous mode, including a warning about synchronous recording hanging on a silent topic. It gives a concrete inject-then-record sequence with steps, which is clear usage guidance. It also explains the behavior of rosbag record --duration, helping the agent decide on duration_sec.

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