vibeside_emulate_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether emulation persists across navigations, how to revert it, whether preset and custom width/height conflict, or what side effects on the page result — significant gaps for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler; the verb leads and the emulatable properties follow. It is efficient, though the comma-list of properties reads slightly like a keyword dump rather than structured guidance.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the agent must understand persistence and reset behavior to use this well, and the description is silent on both. The rich schema covers per-parameter meaning, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the "overrides preset" interplay). The description recaps a subset of those properties in prose but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Emulate") and resource ("device") and enumerates the emulatable surface: viewport, userAgent, touch, pixel ratio, and color scheme. This is far clearer than a tautology, though it never names the distinct siblings (reset_emulation, get_emulation_status, emulate_pseudo_state) an agent must choose between.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisites are stated. The description implies emulation is the goal but gives no signal about how it relates to reset_emulation, get_emulation_status, capture_viewport_matrix, or the throttle_* tools that also alter device conditions.

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