vibeside_extract_styles

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, and it discloses almost none of it. It implies a read operation but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions or connection state it needs, or how heavy the operation is. Listing the four output categories is the only behavioral hint offered.

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 and target element come first, followed by the output enumeration. Appropriately sized, though the four-item list is dense and unpunctuated in terms of hierarchy.

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 no output schema, enumerating the return categories (computed styles, matched rules, box model, Tailwind suggestions) is genuinely useful and covers the 'what do I get back' question. What remains missing is usage context and any behavioral note for a browser-state-dependent read tool.

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, properties, and includeMatchedRules. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., selector syntax, matching semantics) beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and enumerates the four resource types returned (computed CSS styles, matched stylesheet rules, box model metrics, Tailwind classes) scoped to 'an element'. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like vibeside_inspect_component, vibeside_inspect_contrast, or vibeside_override_style.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text when extraction is preferable to inspect_component or a DOM snapshot. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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