Mark async recording timeline

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

The description introduces a concept ('offsetMs from record start') that does not exist in the input schema; the actual parameters are label, serial, and recordId, with no offsetMs. This discrepancy could mislead an agent. Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden, but it fails to disclose whether labels must be unique, the effect on the recording, or what happens if the recordId is invalid. The claimed offsetMs is not a parameter, reducing trustworthiness.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it includes a potentially misleading reference to 'offsetMs' that could confuse agents. Most of the sentence is useful, but the erroneous detail slightly reduces efficiency.

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 tool has three required parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description provides context about correlating with other tools but omits details like when exactly to invoke (e.g., during an active recording) and how the label relates to the recording timeline. With a moderate complexity (3 params, no enums), the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 67% (label and serial have descriptions; recordId lacks one). The tool description adds limited parameter meaning: it explains that the label is a 'labeled timestamp' for correlation, which slightly enriches the label parameter but adds nothing for serial or recordId. Given the baseline of 3 for high coverage, the minimal extra value keeps the score at 3.

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 tool's function: 'Attach a labeled timestamp... for later correlation with analyze/focus/logcat.' It specifies verb (attach), resource (timestamp on a recording), and intended use (correlation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mobile_analyze_recording or mobile_focus_trace which perform analysis, not marking.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('for later correlation with analyze/focus/logcat'), implying it should be used during or after recording to mark points of interest. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., active recording) or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer context.

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