sleeper_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely fails it. It never states whether the log is captured by default, whether it is bounded or overwritten, what 'clear' destroys, or whether the log is scoped to the current tab only; 'per-tab' is the sole behavioral hint.

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?

It is a four-word noun fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: there is no sentence structure, no front-loaded verb, and no information for an agent to act on. Brevity here costs comprehension.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description supplies essentially nothing — no return shape, no default, no side effects. An agent cannot invoke 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 only 25% — just the optional 'profile' parameter is documented. The description says nothing about 'tab', 'clear', or 'since', leaving half the tool's behavior (scoping, destructive clearing, time filtering) undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 fragment 'Per-tab media request log' names the resource (media request log) and its scope (per-tab), which distinguishes it from sleeper_network and sleeper_console. However, it contains no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, streams, or clears the log — only the presence of the 'clear' parameter hints at mutation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sleeper_network, sleeper_console, or sleeper_state, all of which are plausible log-inspection siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are stated.

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