neuron_start_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently describes the side effect of starting a recording session, the types of interactions captured, and the active-tab scope. However, it does not disclose lifecycle details such as whether a previous recording is replaced, whether recording continues until neuron_stop_recording is called, or whether any UI indicator or state change appears on the page.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the interaction types, the scope, and the resulting artifact are all included efficiently.

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, no-output-schema tool with a straightforward purpose, the description is nearly complete. It covers what, where, and outcome. It loses one point because it does not explicitly mention the recording lifecycle or relationship to stop/replay tools, which would help an agent plan a multi-step workflow.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description adds useful semantic context about the active-tab scope and the replayable workflow artifact.

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 a specific action ('Start recording') on a specific resource ('user interactions ... on the active tab') with a concrete outcome ('as a replayable workflow'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like neuron_stop_recording and neuron_start_replay because the verb, scope, and artifact are all specified.

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 its usage context: use this when you want to capture interactions on the active tab for later replay. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as neuron_run_sequence, neuron_start_replay, or neuron_start_demo, nor does it state when not to use it.

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