emulate_vision_deficiency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the purpose and gives examples, but does not mention side effects (e.g., persistence, impact on rendering), how to reset (though 'none' is in the schema), or any limitations. The schema's 'none (reset)' hint is not repeated in the description, leaving the description thin on behavioral traits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise while still conveying the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose and leaves parameter details to the schema, though it could briefly mention the reset option or that this affects the rendering view, but that is not critical given the schema's completeness.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for the single 'type' parameter, including enum meanings and reset behavior. The description adds only a high-level summary ('color blindness, blurred vision') that is already embedded in the schema, so it adds minimal value beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('vision deficiencies'), and the parenthetical examples distinguish it from sibling emulation tools like emulate_device or emulate_geolocation. It conveys exactly what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you need to simulate vision deficiencies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or mention of accessibility testing contexts, so it remains at the implied level.

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