Measure network latency, jitter, and effective throughput on the active page or a target URL to diagnose connection performance.
Benchmark network latency (RTT), jitter, and effective throughput on the active page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Optional target URL to benchmark (defaults to active page URL) | |
| iterations | No | Number of round-trip ping/fetch test iterations (1-10, default: 3) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is measured but not whether the operation is read-only/non-destructive, how long it runs, whether it perturbs network state, or what permissions it needs. 'Benchmark' implies measurement, but that is left to inference.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names the metric set and scope immediately.
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 two-optional-parameter measurement tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is measured but not the return shape or side-effect profile. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about results and safety.
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 100%, so both parameters (url, iterations with range/default) are fully documented. The description adds only the 'active page' default context and no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Benchmark) and precise resources (network latency/RTT, jitter, effective throughput), and scopes it to the active page. It is clearly distinguishable from throughput/throttle siblings like vibeside_throttle_network, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as vibeside_throttle_network or vibeside_list_network_profiles, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The only context offered is the implicit 'active page' scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.