vibeside_throttle_cpu

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 emulation mechanism (CDP Emulation domain) and the value range, but says nothing about persistence across navigations, scope (tab vs browser), or how to revert the throttle, which are the behavioral facts an agent actually needs for a mutation-style emulation call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and free of filler. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but there is no wasted text.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic contract but omits lifecycle details (persistence, reset path, scope) that the sibling tools imply are relevant. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the single rate parameter already documents the semantics with examples (1 = no throttle, 4 = 4x slowdown). The description's '1x to 20x' restates the schema bounds rather than adding new meaning, so 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?

The description names a specific action (emulate CPU slowdown), the resource (CPU throttling), the valid range, and the underlying mechanism (CDP Emulation domain). The CPU resource naturally separates it from the sibling vibeside_throttle_network, though no sibling is named 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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of how to undo it despite the existence of siblings like vibeside_reset_emulation and vibeside_get_emulation_status. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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