vibeside_cluster_scale

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of the worker pool but says nothing about what happens to in-flight tasks when scaling down, whether scale-down is graceful or destructive, whether it requires elevated permissions, or whether the change is immediate.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and the resource with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action but omits the behavioral consequences of scaling down and what the call reports back. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured safety hints.

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 coverage is 100%, with targetWorkers documented as the target pool size and bounded 0-32, so the baselined score of 3 applies. The phrase 'target worker count' usefully confirms the parameter is an absolute target rather than a delta, but adds little beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb ('manually scale ... up or down') and a specific resource ('browser worker pool'), and the target-count framing separates it from siblings like cluster_status or cluster_shutdown. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from cluster_configure, which could plausibly also touch the pool.

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 cluster_configure, cluster_status, or cluster_dispatch, nor any prerequisites such as whether a cluster must be running first. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and the surrounding cluster-* family.

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