start_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal helpful traits: recording is 'quiet' and 'background', targets a single window, and explicitly does not control input or capture audio. However, it does not disclose what happens when maxSeconds is reached, whether a session identifier is returned, or how output is stored.

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 only two sentences, both informative and free of filler. It front-loads the main action and adds a concise scope limitation. It is appropriately sized, though slightly more operational detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

This is a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only covers high-level purpose and two exclusions. Missing essential context includes parameter meanings, prerequisites, return/session behavior, and how the tool relates to list_windows and stop_recording. The description is not sufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description names or explains none of the six parameters. An agent cannot learn from the description how hwnd or windowTitle select the target, what fps/encoder/drawMouse control, or how maxSeconds bounds the recording. The description provides no compensation for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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 states the core action clearly: 'Start quiet background recording of one Windows application window.' It also adds useful scope exclusions ('does not control input or capture audio'). However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_windows or stop_recording, so it falls just short of 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no workflow hints such as obtaining a window handle via list_windows or ending the recording with stop_recording. The negative statement about input/audio is a scope clarification, not a usage guideline.

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