vibeside_observe_long_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 50ms threshold and that derived metrics (TBT, CWV rating) are computed, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether observation is a one-shot snapshot or continuous, how the memory buffer accumulates, or what clearing implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly dense with three comma-separated clauses, but every clause adds information and nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it stops at naming the metrics. It does not describe the shape of returned long-task records or how buffer/clear semantics affect repeated calls, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 the schema already documents limit, minDurationMs, and clearAfterRead. The description only echoes the >50ms default already present in the schema and adds no format, range, or behavioral nuance beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (observe) and resource (main-thread Long Tasks) and goes further to name derived outputs (TBT, Core Web Vitals responsiveness rating). It is distinguishable in broad terms from siblings like observe_layout_shifts, though it does not explicitly contrast against them.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., requires a connected/attached browser session), and no routing away from related observers such as observe_layout_shifts, observe_dom_mutations, or observe_media_events. Usage context is only implied by the term 'observe'.

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