Start recording

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is captured (elements, hashes, apps), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects, persistence of the recording, resource cost, or whether starting while a recording is already active is an error.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the key action first and a compact parenthetical detail. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than elegantly terse.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the basic purpose but omits the return value (e.g. a recording handle needed by computer_record_stop) and any lifecycle context, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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% and the single nested target object is fully documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'target session' loosely maps to the target parameter but adds no syntax, defaults, or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Start recording executed actions') and scopes it to a target session, with a parenthetical clarifying what evidence is captured. It is distinguishable from siblings like computer_screenshot or computer_inspect, but it never references its obvious counterpart computer_record_stop.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no conditions or prerequisites. It does not say that a recording session must later be closed with computer_record_stop, nor when recording is preferable to computer_run_script or computer_run_ui_test.

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