record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not what is captured (video, trace, HAR), where the recording is stored, how long it persists, or how to retrieve it. The toggle semantics of a single start/stop tool are never explained, which is a significant gap for a stateful operation.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate in structure, though it is under-specification rather than genuine efficiency; still, nothing in the text is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, stateful recording tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical questions unanswered: what triggers start vs. stop, what artifact is produced, and where it goes. With no annotations and no output schema to lean on, the description is not complete enough for confident 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is no parameter semantics to convey, and the description does not need to compensate for anything in this dimension.

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 gives a verb pair and a resource ("start or stop recording what the browser is doing"), so the basic intent is graspable. However, it is a single tool performing two opposite operations with no parameter to disambiguate, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'video' tool, which plausibly also records. That ambiguity keeps it from being a clear, distinguishable purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives such as 'video', 'screenshot', or 'measure_frames'. Nothing explains the condition that starts versus stops the recording, so an agent cannot tell which call state it is in or when recording is appropriate.

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