start_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: mouse motion is recorded unfiltered and can be voluminous. This warns the agent about potential large data, which is valuable beyond just 'start recording'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a brief caution. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple start action, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what happens (starts recording) and adds a relevant side-effect warning. The sibling list further clarifies the recording workflow.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (there are none to add), but the schema already covers the empty parameter set completely.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start recording') and clearly identifies the resource ('player input events in the running game'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_recording' and 'replay_recording' by focusing on the start action.

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 context is clear: this tool is for starting input capture, with a warning about voluminous mouse motion data. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tool names (replay_recording, simulate_mouse_move) imply the workflow. No exclusions are stated.

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