coppelia_record_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only discloses that recording is bounded/per-step and outputs JSON. It never warns that the tool likely launches a simulation, may stop it (stop_on_finish), runs headless, or has side effects on the current simulator state—all significant traits an agent needs before invoking a 9-parameter execution tool.

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 single sentence is dense and front-loaded with no filler, which is structurally efficient. Its brevity is a liability only because it under-specifies, which is better captured by the completeness dimension.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. The description omits parameter behavior, simulation side effects, and result/export semantics, leaving the agent with substantial gaps before it can 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the nine parameters, but it only vaguely gestures at steps/until ('bounded'), sensors, and JSON export. Key parameters like observe, headless, max_samples, sample_every, and stop_on_finish are never clarified, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Record) and concrete resources (simulation state, typed sensor samples) plus the output format (JSON), which is far more informative than a title restatement. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like coppelia_step or coppelia_sensors, so 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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over coppelia_step, coppelia_simulate, or coppelia_sensors. 'Bounded, per-step synchronized' hints at a recording workflow but does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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