emulate_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. It mentions 'Force' but does not explain persistence, reset conditions, side effects, or whether the emulation applies to a specific tab or globally. This leaves behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. Backtick formatting clarifies parameter values. It is appropriately concise, though could include a brief note on persistence.

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?

The tool modifies browser state, but the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., browser must be running), return values (though output schema exists), or whether the effect is tab-specific. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists typical values for both parameters (media: '', 'screen', 'print'; prefers_color_scheme: '', 'light', 'dark'), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks exact behavior for each value.

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 forces CSS media type and/or prefers-color-scheme. The verb 'Force' and resource are specific. Among sibling tools, no other tool does media emulation, so it is distinct.

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 provides typical values for parameters, implying usage for responsive design testing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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