wpf_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses what gets captured (input actions including drag/touch, finds, successful waits and assertions), persistence across CLI invocations, plain-text value storage, and the sequential-call constraint. It leaves out the destructive nature of 'clear' and any error/auth behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences each add a distinct operational fact (capture scope, ordering rule, persistence, sequencing). No redundant or padded sentences, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 stateful, multi-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the essential lifecycle (persistence until target exit), capture semantics, and constraints. It remains incomplete on the exact action contract and the `name` parameter, but is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively enumerates the valid values for the `action` parameter (start/stop/status/clear) but never states these map to `action`, and provides no meaning at all for the optional `name` parameter. This is partial compensation with a clear remaining gap.

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?

States a specific set of verbs (start/stop/status/clear) applied to a concrete resource (linear workflow recording in the attached app). An agent can distinguish this control tool from retrieval (wpf_get_recording), replay (wpf_replay), and export (wpf_export_test). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it just below the top band.

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?

Implied usage is present: 'Start/stop/status/clear' plus the ordering rule 'Stop and export before clearing' and the sequencing constraint 'Calls must be sequential while recording.' However, it never states when to prefer this over recording alternatives like wpf_replay or wpf_export_test, or what prerequisites (attached app) gate invocation.

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