emulate_cpu_throttle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('throttle CPU') but omits important behavioral traits such as whether the throttle persists, how to reset it, or any side effects on ongoing performance. The description adds no context beyond what is obvious from the name.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is easily parsed and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, but some additional context about usage or effects would be beneficial without making it verbose.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain how the throttling is applied or removed, nor does it mention any dependencies on other tools (e.g., emulate_clear_all). The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool safely in a session.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'rate' parameter with a description and range, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantic detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Throttle CPU') and clearly states the purpose ('to simulate slower devices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling emulation tools like emulate_device or perf_cpu_profile_start by focusing on CPU throttling.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when throttling should be applied, how long it lasts, or how it relates to other emulation tools like emulate_clear_all. The description implies usage but does not give any conditional or exclusionary context.

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