flow-start-recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses file creation (YAML in .argent/flows/), return values (message, flowFile, savedTo, optional previousFlow), failure conditions (directory/file write), and the live execution of steps during recording. It also notes editable YAML, adding useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then return values, failure, and a step-by-step workflow. It is concise at around 120 words, with no wasted sentences. Every part adds value. Could be slightly tighter, but still very good.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (part of a flow-recording workflow) and no output schema, the description covers context adequately: it describes return values, failure cases, and next steps. It also notes the ability to edit the YAML file. For a tool with sibling dependencies, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., name, project_root, executionPrerequisite). It reiterates the directory structure but adds no new semantic detail. Thus, score stays at baseline.

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 starts with 'Start recording a new flow' – a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming flow-add-step, flow-add-echo, and flow-finish-recording as subsequent tools, establishing its role as the entry point in the recording workflow.

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 explicitly states 'Use when you want to capture a reusable sequence of device interactions for later replay.' It also outlines a clear workflow after starting (use flow-add-step, flow-add-echo, flow-finish-recording). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is strong enough.

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