enableRecorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Check connection' but does not mention whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or what happens if the connection is missing. The name 'enableRecorder' also hints at a state change that the description does not confirm or deny.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds a practical usage note. It is appropriately sized, though some wording could be more precise; it does not over-explain.

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 lacks essential behavioral context for a simple diagnostic tool: no expected return value, no failure behavior, and no mention of prerequisites. The ambiguity between 'enable' and 'check' further reduces completeness, and with no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter details are needed, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 ('Check ChromeTools Extension connection') and context ('for scenario recording'), which differentiates it from tools like startRecording or stopRecording. However, the name 'enableRecorder' suggests an enabling action, while the description only says 'check', creating slight ambiguity about the tool's actual effect.

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 the tool should be used to verify the extension connection before recording, and provides an alternative ('Use Chrome Extension popup (CT icon) for recording'). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to sibling tools, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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