vibeside_time_travel_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, says nothing about privileges or limits, and gives no hint of what a reconstructed state contains, leaving the behavioral profile largely undisclosed.

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 wastes no words and puts the core action first. It is dense but efficient, with no filler to trim.

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 6-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the addressing modes but omits the important relationship between them (whether sequence/timestamp/percent/jumpTo are mutually exclusive) and the role of currentSequence in relative jumps, which is the kind of ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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 six parameters are already documented with constraints and the jumpTo enum values. The description restates the addressing modes but adds no syntax, exclusivity, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb pair ("reconstruct and inspect") and resource ("browser and runtime telemetry state"), and enumerates the four addressing modes. It is distinguishable from vibeside_telemetry_get, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase "at any point in time by sequence, timestamp, percentage, or jumping to errors" implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about how it differs from live telemetry retrieval, and no exclusions.

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