quest_screen_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core behavior: recording for N seconds, saving an MP4, and returning the file path. It does not cover consequences like file overwriting, device connection requirements, or failure modes, limiting transparency.

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-loads the action, and includes only relevant details.

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 description includes the key aspects: duration limit, output type, and return value, which is sufficient for a simple tool. Yet the lack of parameter semantics and no output schema leave some ambiguity about how to specify the save path and device, so it's not fully complete.

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%, but the description hints at duration limits ('max 180') and that a file is saved locally, partially covering duration_seconds and save_path. It does not address device_id or explain parameter formats, so compensation is insufficient.

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 records the headset screen for a specified duration and saves an MP4 file locally, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes the return value (file path), which distinguishes it from the sibling quest_screenshot.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('useful for capturing a bug repro') that helps an agent decide when to select it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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