record_command

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with a tool that only returns a command string, and the description usefully adds the 1 h / 24 h-with-free-key limit as behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the returned command string looks like or how it relates to the eventual list_recordings/recording_report flow, so the added context is modest against annotations that already signal a harmless read.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the key behavioral rule ('you cannot start a recording') is front-loaded ahead of the instruction to the agent. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, but for a two-step workflow tool it omits the follow-on context an agent needs: what to tell the user after running the command, and how this pairs with recording_report or list_recordings. The essentials are there, but the workflow context is thin.

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 100%, so both parameters (profile, duration) are fully documented in the schema, and the description reinforces the duration limit (1 h default, 24 h with the free key) and that the profile name comes from list_profiles. It adds reinforcing meaning to the duration constraint rather than pure duplication, but offers nothing beyond what the schema states.

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 resolves the ambiguity in the name 'record_command' by stating it returns the command string the user runs in a terminal, not an executed recording. It clearly distinguishes the tool's output (a command) from the act of recording, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_recordings or recording_report.

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?

'You cannot start a recording: give the user this command' is an explicit usage constraint that tells the agent both when to use it and what to do with the result. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the actual recording flow, but the context is unambiguous.

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