gravacao

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: that `iniciar` requires a person's request and specific approval, the privacy caution against publishing/sharing without reviewing personal data, and the efficiency constraint of not pulling hundreds of frames. It stops short of describing the return format of `estado` or the reversibility of edits.

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?

Front-loaded with the overall purpose, then organized by action using backticked names, followed by workflow and privacy notes. Dense but each sentence carries information, though several clauses re-state schema-level constraints.

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 13-parameter, five-action tool with no output schema, it covers each action, the approval prerequisite, the `ver` workflow, and a privacy caution. `estado` is only described as 'consulta' with no indication of what it returns, which is the main remaining gap without an output schema to rely on.

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 92%, so the schema already documents essentially every parameter (de, ate, area, modo, trechos, etc.). The description only reinforces how de/ate and area combine for region investigation and restates the modo 'mudancas' 30 s limit, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when 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?

States a clear purpose ('Grava, inspeciona e edita uma captura local da tela') and enumerates all five sub-actions with a specific meaning for each (iniciar/parar/estado/ver/montar). An agent can tell what the tool does and how each action differs. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling tools 'browser' and 'computador'.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'iniciar' requires a person's request and specific approval, `ver` should be used with de/ate and area to investigate a region and refine the interval across calls rather than requesting hundreds of images, and 'mudancas' mode suits something that appears and disappears. No explicit exclusion against the sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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