Lazynext Accessibility Checker

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 doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens with an invalid or expired id, whether reports are scoped to the caller, or the shape of the returned report, leaving significant gaps for a retrieval 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifying clause placed where it reads naturally. 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential calling context (id provenance) but omits error behavior and a rough sense of the returned report's contents, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 itself explains that id is 'the slug in the report URL'. The description adds the provenance (from a prior scan result), which is helpful but is largely reinforcement of what the schema already conveys, 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?

The description states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a stored scan report) and clarifies the id source, which links it to the scan_url/scan_html siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_rules or spell out that it is the retrieval counterpart to the scan tools.

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 parenthetical '(from a prior scan_url/scan_html result)' implies the prerequisite context for using this tool, which is useful. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct naming of an alternative retrieval path.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the description discloses the returned content, but it never states that the call is safe/non-mutating or that no arguments are accepted.

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 tightly written sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler.

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 trivial no-argument listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and what fields accompany each entry. A brief note on ordering or that results are static would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 ('List') and resource ('every WCAG criterion the scanner can emit'), and even names the fields returned (level, detection path). This clearly separates it from the scan_* and get_report siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the scanners or get_report, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The use case (a reference lookup) is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: static rules only, no rendering, and no quota consumption. It does not say whether the scan is synchronous or how results are retrieved (get_report exists as a sibling), leaving a modest gap.

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 with the action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 audit tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input mode, and the key behavioral constraints (no render, no quota). It falls short only on how findings are returned relative to the get_report sibling.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('HTML source, max 512KB'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the 'pasted' framing and no format or encoding detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('pasted HTML markup') plus the target standard (WCAG violations). The word 'pasted' implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_url, which handles remote content, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 description makes the input mode clear ('pasted HTML') which implies the alternative is scan_url, but it never names scan_url or states the condition for choosing between them. Usage is implied rather than explicit, with no when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the free-tier quota (3 URL scans/day/IP), the Pro escape hatch via a license email, and the shape of the result (score, findings, shareable report URL). It stops short of stating the operation is read-only/side-effect free or how rendering failures/timeouts behave.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the return contract and the quota constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents (score, findings, report URL), quota limits, and licensing. It omits the read-only/safety profile and any failure-mode behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the mobile/desktop viewport enum and the site crawl limit. The description's quota mention overlaps rather than extends the schema's 'crawl same-origin pages (3 free / 10 Pro)' note, so the baseline of 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 pair (render and audit), a precise resource (a live web page), and the standard applied (WCAG 2.1/2.2). The word 'live' implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_html, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: audit a live URL. It never states when to prefer scan_url over scan_html (static markup) or when get_report should be used instead, and the rate-limit note describes cost rather than selection criteria.

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