vibeside_observe_layout_shifts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is real-time telemetry observation and even describes the shape of the output (ratings, ranked culprits), but it does not state whether the read is non-destructive, what buffering behavior to expect, or how the clearAfterRead side effect interacts with observation.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary resource front-loaded and no filler. It efficiently packs the metric, the rating taxonomy, and the culprit-ranking output, though the trailing clauses slightly crowd what could be a cleaner statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned data domains (CLS telemetry, good/needs_improvement/poor ratings, ranked culprit elements). However, for a telemetry-observation tool it omits how results are scoped or paginated and how the buffer-clearing param changes returns, leaving 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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, clearAfterRead, unexpectedOnly) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Observe) and a precise resource (real-time Cumulative Layout Shift / CLS telemetry), and further specifies the returned content (Core Web Vitals rating, ranked culprit DOM elements). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vibeside_observe_long_tasks or vibeside_observe_dom_mutations, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the CLS-specific observation tool versus vibeside_telemetry_get, vibeside_telemetry_clear, or vibeside_clear_dom_telemetry entirely from the resource name.

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