網頁動畫無障礙與效能檢查清單（WCAG 2.2.2、2.3.1、2.3.3、prefers-reduced-motion、CLS、LCP），附全站減少動態 CSS。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "animation_a11y_checklist"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool returns conceptually (a checklist plus a site-wide reduce-motion CSS snippet), which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about the output format, whether there is any state or side effect, or how the checklist is delivered.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core deliverable and then parenthetically lists the covered criteria. Every clause earns its place; the only mild cost is that the trailing list is information-dense and slightly harder to parse.
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 zero-parameter reference/checklist tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces and the scope of standards it checks. It lacks any statement of return format, but the absence of side effects or auth needs keeps the definition essentially 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies since nothing is missing or contradictory on the parameter front.
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 names a specific deliverable (an accessibility and performance checklist for web animations) and enumerates the exact standards it covers (WCAG 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.3, prefers-reduced-motion, CLS, LCP), which clearly separates it from the generator-oriented siblings. It stops short of an explicit 'this is not the generator' statement, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.
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: an agent can infer you call this when auditing animation accessibility/performance, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.