browser_video_show_actions

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the agent knows it's safe. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'annotate subsequent actions' – it doesn't explain how it detects actions, whether it requires an ongoing video recording, or what happens if used without recording. For a tool that modifies visual display, more behavioral disclosure would be valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct value: the first defines the action, the second gives the use case.

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 tool's low complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose and high-level context. However, it lacks explanation of prerequisites (e.g., whether video recording must be active) and how the tool interacts with the recording process, which would be valuable for a visual annotation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself documents each parameter well (cursor types, duration unit, position options), so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Annotate') and resource ('subsequent actions performed on the page'), and explicitly states the use case ('while video recording or screencasting'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `browser_video_hide_actions` and `browser_annotate`.

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 clearly states this is for video recording or screencasting contexts, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tool `browser_video_hide_actions` strongly implies the counterpart.

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