record_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the mechanism (CDP screencast), encoding options (MP4/GIF), fallback behavior if ffmpeg is missing, and the effect of each command. However, it omits edge cases like overlapping start/stop calls and does not describe the return value (e.g., status command output).

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 with a summary line, a mechanism paragraph, and an Args list. It is appropriately sized for 7 parameters, but the prerequisites sentence could be integrated more concisely. No wasted words overall.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavior well. It explains encoding details and defaults. However, it lacks return value descriptions for commands like 'status' and does not mention concurrency or error states, leaving minor gaps.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with defaults and additional context (e.g., output_format details 'GIF uses palette-optimized encoding at 10fps/800px width'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Control video recording for the current browser session' with specific verb 'record' and resource 'video recording'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like take_screenshot_tool by focusing on video rather than static images, and further details the commands (start, stop, status).

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 implies usage through the commands and mentions prerequisites (ffmpeg), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., take_screenshot_tool). It does not provide 'when not to use' or direct comparisons, leaving the agent to infer context.

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