safari_emulate

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 states the tool resizes the window and sets the user agent, which covers the main behaviors. It does not mention other aspects like viewport scale or touch simulation, but the parameter list adds some transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences with no unnecessary information. Every word contributes to clarity, and it is well structured for quick agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential actions (resize, set user agent) and provides device examples. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention scale behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds only moderate value by grouping devices and noting custom options. It does not elaborate on parameters like scale or userAgent beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 emulates a mobile device by resizing window and setting user agent. It lists specific device names and mentions custom width/height options, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like safari_resize.

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 description gives clear examples of when to use the tool (with specific devices or custom dimensions). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like safari_resize for simple resizing, but the context of siblings provides sufficient distinction.

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