mouse_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a useful nuance: re-calling replaces the previous recorder rather than leaking its listener. Still, it leaves the stop condition, duration behavior, and recording lifecycle implicit.

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 short sentences with the main action first and a valuable caveat second. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for a low-complexity recording tool and names the replay counterpart, but it does not explain when recording ends, what happens at duration or point caps, or whether the recording is stored for later replay beyond the tool name.

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 coverage is only 50% because duration_ms lacks a description, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. An agent must infer that duration_ms controls recording length, leaving a real gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start recording mouse positions in the page.' It also names the complementary tool, mouse_replay, which distinguishes it from siblings like mouse_move or mouse_drift.

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?

It explicitly pairs the tool with mouse_replay for replaying, giving an agent a clear next step. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives beyond replay.

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