vibeside_emulate_pseudo_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism ('using CDP or synthetic fallback'), hinting that behavior may vary by path, but says nothing about persistence, whether states must be cleared, or auth/permission requirements.

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. Minor redundancy in listing all seven pseudo-class values that already appear in the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not explain returns, and it does cover the core action and mechanism. However, for a state-mutating tool with no annotations, it omits persistence and lifecycle details an agent would benefit from.

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 the schema already documents selector, clearOthers, and pseudoClasses. The description's enumeration of pseudo-class values simply repeats the schema enum and adds no format or behavioral detail beyond it.

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 (force/emulate) and resource (CSS pseudo-classes on an element), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not name the sibling vibeside_clear_pseudo_states or otherwise differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The testing use case (forcing hover/focus for inspection) is only implied by the tool's wording, leaving the agent to infer context.

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