vibeside_capture_viewport_matrix

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 does not state whether a browser must be connected/spawned first, whether device emulation is restored afterward, that the run produces a structured report, or that saveScreenshotsDir writes files to disk. 'Capture' reads as safe, but the mutation-to-disk and session-prerequisite behaviors are undisclosed.

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 the primary action first and a parenthetical enumerating the device categories. No wasted words, though the two distinct outcomes (audit + overflow detection) are packed into one clause.

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 6-parameter, zero-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits anything about the returned report structure, prerequisites (connected browser), or interaction with emulation/screenshot tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would need filled.

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% and each of the 6 parameters is documented in-schema (defaults, enums, examples), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. that devices overrides category, or how screenshots are returned) beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 ('Capture') and resource ('responsive audit across device presets') plus a secondary outcome ('detect horizontal layout overflow'). This clearly separates it from the single-shot vibeside_screenshot and the single-device vibeside_emulate_device, though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'responsive audit across device presets' implies the use case (multi-device visual/overflow checking), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, prerequisite, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is preferred over looping vibeside_screenshot.

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