vibeside_inspect_aria_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates the read-only analysis surface (what is computed) but says nothing about error behavior for invalid/missing selectors, behavior on hidden or detached elements, or what the trace output looks like.

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 that names the operation and its computed outputs with no filler. The comma-joined output list is dense but every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema inspector, the description usefully enumerates the returned analysis dimensions (explicit/implicit role, accessible name trace, focusability), which compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of failure-mode context keeps it from a 5.

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 schema already documents the selector as a CSS selector for the element to inspect. The description restates the same notion ('single DOM element') without adding format, targeting, or uniqueness semantics 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'deep inspection of a single DOM element' with a named objective (WAI-ARIA 1.2/1.3 compliance) and concrete computed outputs (role, accessible name trace, focusability). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from page-wide siblings like audit_accessibility or get_accessibility_tree, but 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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. With siblings such as vibeside_get_accessibility_tree, vibeside_audit_accessibility, and vibeside_inspect_component in the same family, the description never states when to reach for this element-level inspector instead.

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