Start buffering LCU events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers substantial behavior: it discloses the memory-risk side effect ('fills the buffer in seconds'), the ingest-time filtering behavior, and the idempotent re-call semantics (replaces filters, preserves buffer). Minor gaps: it does not state whether the buffer persists after stop or what teardown entails, but the operational warnings and re-call contract are meaningfully beyond what structured fields would convey.

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?

Three tightly composed sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, the filter guidance with its safety warning sits in sentence two, and the re-call behavior is the single remaining fact in sentence three. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers the primary action, the parameter semantics with a concrete example, the risk of unfiltered use, and the idempotent re-call behavior. The only shortfall is no mention of return value or failure modes (e.g., LCU not connected), which is minor for a side-effect starter tool.

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% (the filters param is documented with pattern and example), so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the mechanical definition: 'Filters are URI prefixes applied at ingest' clarifies timing, and the buffer-danger note explains why filters matter. This converts the parameter from a mere format spec into a functional design decision, exceeding the 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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Open the OnJsonApiEvent tap and buffer events in memory.' It clearly identifies this as the start/buffer action, distinguishing itself from siblings like lol_events_poll (retrieval) and lol_events_stop (teardown) without any ambiguity. The resource name and action are concrete and immediately actionable.

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 explicit guidance on the key usage decision — 'pass filters unless you truly want everything' — and explains the consequence ('the unfiltered firehose fills the buffer in seconds'). It also documents the re-invocation contract: 'Calling this while already running replaces the filters and keeps buffered entries.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for routing, but the filter-or-not guidance and re-call semantics cover the core usage choices for this tool.

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