record_audio

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what stop returns (length, peak/RMS dBFS, clipped samples, silence gaps, and reported problems), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It still omits where the recording is written or how it is retrieved afterward.

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 body is a run-on of awkward, hard-to-parse clauses with parenthetical and appended fragments rather than front-loaded, scannable sentences. The content is dense but the structure actively impedes reading.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the start/stop workflow and enumerates the stop result fields, which is the key gap it needs to fill. It stops short of explaining where the captured audio lives or how to access it after stop.

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 100%, so the schema already documents session, action and gap, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly the idea that two intended-separate sounds require a gap longer than the natural silence between them.

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 does convey that this records audio captured during a session, bounded by a start call and a stop call, and it explicitly names the sibling record_video for the screen-plus-audio case. However, the phrasing is convoluted ("Record what a session started with audio plays... across the calls between that make the sound"), so the core verb+resource is harder to extract than it should be for a clear 4.

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 gives one routing rule ('For a video of the screen with its sound, up to a minute, use record_video with sound') and hints at the gap requirement for separating distinct sounds. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., audio device/permission needs) or an explicit when-not-to-use beyond the record_video pointer.

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