Start recording LCU WAMP traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that a second independent socket is opened, that every frame plus lifecycle events (open, close code, error, reconnect gap) are recorded into one timeline, and that double-start is an error. It stops short of stating resource cost, permission needs, or that uris must begin with '/'.

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 core action and scoping constraint in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence justifies a parameter or the error path. It is dense with nested quoted examples and escaped inner quotes, which makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it does for what the tool does and how to start it. Retrieval of the recorded timeline is delegated to the sibling dump/stop tools, so no critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value: uris 'reproduces what a page-side plugin sees' and cannot distinguish socket death, and restart explicitly 'discard[s] the old [recording]'. That is decision-relevant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Start recording LCU WAMP traffic') with an explicit scope statement that it opens a second WAMP socket independent of lol_events_*. An agent can distinguish it from lol_events_start, lol_wamp_record_stop and lol_wamp_record_dump without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the default (firehose) and the alternative (passing uris), plus the diagnostic trade-off that selects between them: firehose lets you tell 'socket died' from 'nothing happened', per-URI cannot. It also states the error condition when a recording is already running and names the remedy (restart).

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