browser_gif_start

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: default interval (800 ms), automatic frame rate halving to fit ~80 frames, single recording per tab restriction, and that saving only occurs on stop. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand side effects and constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, defaults, behavioral tweak, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what it does, how it behaves (frame rate halving), constraints (single recording per tab, error on double start), and lifecycle dependency on browser_gif_stop. Complete for agent use.

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%—both parameters have descriptions. The description reiterates 'default 800 ms' from the schema and adds context about halving, but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter meanings. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Start recording the tab into an animated GIF'. It specifies the verb (start recording), resource (tab), and output type (animated GIF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_gif_stop and browser_tabs_list.

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 provides usage constraints: 'One recording per tab at a time; starting twice is an error' and 'Nothing is saved until browser_gif_stop.' It implicitly tells when to use (start a recording) and that the stop tool must be called. Could be more explicit about when to use vs. alternatives, but siblings are distinct.

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