vibeside_get_accessibility_tree

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 does disclose meaningful processing traits ('depth pruning', 'uninteresting node filtering', 'role breakdown'), which is better than nothing, but it omits return format, size/pagination behavior, and permissions. For an unannotated extraction tool this is a partial disclosure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and follows with the key processing behaviors. It earns its words and contains no filler, though it packs three distinct features into one clause chain.

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 read/extract tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what the returned tree looks like and how large it can get. It gestures at output structure via 'role breakdown' but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape and cost, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 depth, rootSelector, and interestingOnly fully. The description's phrases 'depth pruning' and 'uninteresting node filtering' echo two of those parameters but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 verb ('Extract') and resource ('hierarchical Chrome Accessibility (AX) tree'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like vibeside_audit_accessibility or vibeside_inspect_aria_element, leaving the agent to infer which a11y tool applies.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as vibeside_audit_accessibility and vibeside_inspect_aria_element in the same accessibility domain, the agent gets no signal on when to reach for the raw AX tree versus an audit or a single-element ARIA inspection.

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