vibeside_observe_media_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that events are buffered (ephemeral, limited history) and that filtering is sliding-window based, and 'Query' implies a read operation. However, it omits auth/connection prerequisites, whether querying drains or clears the buffer, and how the buffer relates to vibeside_clear_media_telemetry.

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 that names the data source, lists event types, and states the filtering mode. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the key scope detail (buffered, sliding-window) is up front.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It does not explain the return shape (array of event objects? fields?), whether results are paginated or ordered, or the connection prerequisites. For a 4-parameter query tool with siblings that also clear media telemetry, an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The description only echoes the sliding-window filtering concept and event type list, adding no syntax, format, or behavior detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Query) and resource (buffered HTML5 media events), enumerates event types, and mentions sliding-window filtering. It implicitly separates from siblings like vibeside_inspect_media_streams by focusing on events rather than streams, but does not name or differentiate any alternative 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites (e.g., must be connected to a browser session) stated. The event-type list implies what you can filter on, but the agent gets no routing help for choosing this tool over e.g. vibeside_inspect_media_streams or vibeside_observe_long_tasks.

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