record_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the operation is asynchronous (start returns job_id immediately), stop sends SIGINT specifically to finalize the MP4, and pull must follow completion. It omits permission/root requirements, where the artifact is written, and what happens if pull is called early, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the resource and action set, with no filler. The compressed 'start/status/stop/pull' notation and the trailing 'ROM screenrecord limits apply' are slightly telegraphic but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the async lifecycle and finalization constraint that an agent must respect. The remaining gap is operational prerequisites (root/permissions, output location) and the meaning of local_path, which is a real but limited omission for a device recording tool.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It effectively enumerates the valid 'action' values (start/status/stop/pull) that the schema leaves as a bare string, and explains job_id's role in the lifecycle, but says nothing about seconds, bit_rate, or local_path beyond the vague 'ROM screenrecord limits apply'.

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 resource (background MP4 recording) and enumerates the four lifecycle actions (start/status/stop/pull), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling capture tools like screenshot_annotated or compare_screenshot, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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 sequence is implied rather than stated: 'Start immediately returns job_id' and 'pull after completion' tell the agent the correct ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use screenshot_annotated for a single frame). Usage must be inferred from the lifecycle phrasing.

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