emulate

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description discloses critical behavior: media overrides apply to the current tab while geolocation/offline apply to the whole context, omitted fields remain unchanged, the geolocation position persists but is only readable by the originating http(s) origin, and a re-call is needed after navigation. This is substantial and non-redundant context that helps the agent predict side effects.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the main action and packs essential details without fluff. It is longer than ideal but each sentence contributes critical information (scope, persistence, permission, re-call guidance). The structure is coherent, though a more segmented layout could improve readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no enums, no schema coverage), the description covers scope, persistence, and permission but omits parameter value options and exact behaviors (e.g., what 'media' accepts, valid color schemes). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the missing parameter specifics leave gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains geolocation format ('lat,lon'), identifies that media overrides include color scheme, reduced motion, and forced colors, and clarifies that offline affects the whole context. However, it does not provide acceptable values or detailed semantics for 'media', 'color_scheme', 'forced_colors', or 'reduced_motion', leaving the agent with incomplete parameter understanding.

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 verb 'emulate' and the resources: media, geolocation, and connectivity. It further specifies the media overrides (color scheme, reduced motion, forced colors) and distinguishes scope (current tab vs. whole context). This is specific and unambiguous, and it differentiates itself from siblings like 'network' by focusing on emulation rather than network traffic.

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 some usage context (e.g., 'call emulate again after navigating elsewhere') and explains when the geolocation permission is granted, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to use this vs. others. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it falls short of a clear when/when-not directive.

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