vibeside_perceptual_hash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from the page, an element, or an image (non-destructive in nature), but it never states that it is a safe read, says nothing about the return format or hash string representation, and gives no cost or permission context.

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 naming the verb, the resource, the algorithm options, and the targets with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the most important information comes first.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the return value, yet it never says what a perceptual hash output looks like or how results can be compared across calls. The targeting behavior is covered, but the output side is a gap for a tool whose whole purpose is producing comparable hashes.

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 fully documents 'image', 'selector', and 'algorithm' with defaults and enum values. The description merely echoes the algorithm names and target sources without adding format or syntax detail, 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?

Specific verb ('Compute') plus a precise resource ('perceptual hashes') and an enumeration of both the algorithms and the three target sources (page, DOM element, input image). It is clear what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from visual-diff siblings like vibeside_visual_diff or vibeside_compare_visual_diff, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

The phrase 'to track visual changes over time' implies the use case but states no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition and names no alternative. It never explains how this differs from the visual_diff siblings, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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