Start full-screen recording (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose two key behaviors: it starts a non-interactive recording and verifies the recorder process. It also states it never opens a region picker. However, it omits other behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether a recording is already active), side effects on existing recordings, or permission requirements, making it incomplete.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose and key behavioral constraint are front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is an exemplary model of concise, clear description.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the return value represents, how parameters interact, or any preconditions. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional context, making it inadequate for its complexity.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description does not mention any parameter (webcam, resolution, audio, etc.). It only describes the tool's overall action, leaving the agent to guess what each parameter does from names and defaults alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start'), a clear resource ('full-screen recording'), and adds a distinctive constraint ('non-interactive', 'Never opens a region picker'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like capture_screenshot or capture_region_clipboard without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clearly states what the tool does NOT do ('Never opens a region picker'), which is an exclusion that guides an agent toward this full-screen, non-interactive tool versus region-based alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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