record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior: long Android recordings may yield multiple video artifacts. However, it lacks other behavioral details such as storage, retrieval, permissions, or effects on existing recordings, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (30 parameters, many device/platform selectors), the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not explain how to choose the target, specify the platform, or handle the multiple artifacts on Android. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage context.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond clarifying the 'action' semantic (start/stop). Parameters like 'fps', 'path', 'quality', and 'recordingScope' lack descriptions in the schema or tool description, so the description does not compensate for the remaining gaps.

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: starting or stopping a screen recording. It specifies the scope ('active app session or selected device'), and the note about long Android recordings returning multiple artifacts adds useful specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'screenshot' or 'trace'.

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 implies when to use the tool (start/stop a recording) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when this tool should not be used. For example, it doesn't say 'for still images use screenshot'. Context is present but exclusions/alternatives are missing.

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