screenstudio_analyze

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: events are reported in source ms, typed text is omitted unless includeText is true, marker timing has specific pause/resume semantics, and audio valleys are derived only with a microphone.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then enumerates event types in a single dense sentence. It is long and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause contributes specific semantic information needed to understand the output.

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 complex event categories, lack of output schema, and poor schema descriptions, the description does substantial work by listing returned event types and timing semantics. It still omits projectPath meaning and exact output structure details, so it is strong but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains includeText by stating that typed text is omitted unless it is true, but it leaves projectPath unexplained beyond the schema's type and minimum length requirement.

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 states a specific action and resource: reading what happens in the raw recording, with a detailed enumeration of event types it extracts. It is much clearer than the bare tool name screenstudio_analyze, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as screenstudio_transcript_read or screenstudio_plan_edit.

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 explains what the tool returns but says nothing about when to use it versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving routing guidance to inference.

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