Macro recorder

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on what destructive behaviors may occur (e.g., overwriting files or stopping recordings). It adds actions and the JSON format, but no behavioral details about side effects, safety of stop/load, or handling of sensitive data. The description contradicts no annotations, but fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the flags.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists actions efficiently. It adds a pointer to the replay tool without fluff, earning a high score.

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?

With five parameters and four actions plus destructive hints, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks parameter meanings, action-specific behavior, and side-effect warnings. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for explanation, which is not met.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain parameters like file, name, or redactSensitive. The action enum is self-explanatory and allowUnsafeRecording has a schema description, but the rest remain ambiguous, making it hard to invoke correctly.

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 records MCP tool calls to a JSON macro file, listing specific actions (start/stop/list/load). It distinguishes from sibling run_macro_script by noting replay ships separately. This is a specific verb+resource scope.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for recording macros and points to run_macro_script as the replay alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to other macro-related tools like create_macro, so exclusions are absent.

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