vibeside_inspect_form_validation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose what information is reported (validity flags, messages, valid/invalid counts), which implies a non-mutating inspection. However, it never explicitly states that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or how it handles a selector that matches no form.

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, with the output contents compactly parenthesized. No filler, though the parenthetical makes it slightly dense.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the shape of the returned validation data. Only the read-only guarantee and edge-case behavior under a non-matching selector remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single formSelector parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that the target may be a form or any container, matching the schema default, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a specific resource ('HTML5 constraint validation states'), a scope ('across all fields in a form or container'), and enumerates the returned data. This clearly separates it from siblings like inspect_contrast or inspect_aria_element.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as eval, dom_snapshot, or autofill_form, and no prerequisites or timing conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the domain (form validation).

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