vibeside_inspect_contrast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the computation method (sRGB linearization) and that it returns accessible color suggestions, which is real added context. However, it never states prerequisites (connected browser, page loaded) or whether it needs a selector or explicit colors, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 resource lead, and the technical qualifiers (WCAG 2.2, sRGB linearization, suggestions) follow. Nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is only minimally adequate. It never explains the relationship between selector and direct color overrides, nor what a result contains beyond "suggestions," so an agent cannot fully predict invocation or outcome.

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 all five parameters (isBold, bgColor, fgColor, fontSize, selector) with types, ranges, and formats. The description only echoes "foreground and background" and adds no syntax, default, or selection logic beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Inspect") and resource ("WCAG 2.2 color contrast ratio between foreground and background"), which is unique among the siblings – no other tool targets contrast specifically. It does not name a sibling it is distinct from (e.g. vibeside_audit_accessibility or vibeside_inspect_aria_element), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 mention of alternatives such as vibeside_audit_accessibility for broader a11y checks, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer when contrast inspection is the right call versus running a full accessibility audit.

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