MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action returns 'process info' which adds some context about output, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether recording continues in background, how to stop it, what format the video is saved in, or any permissions/requirements. For a tool that initiates a potentially long-running process, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the behavioral complexity of video recording.

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 that starts video recording (a non-trivial operation with ongoing effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it leaves critical questions unanswered about how the recording works, how to manage it, and what the 'process info' return entails.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Start recording video') and target ('of a simulator'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'start-recording' tool, which appears to be a more general recording tool, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start-recording' or other simulator-specific tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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