Re-scans a URL after fixes have been applied and compares results against the original scan. Returns which violations were resolved, which persist, and any new issues introduced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | The original scan_id from scan_accessibility to compare against | |
| anthropic_api_key | Yes | Your Anthropic API key (used only for this request, never stored) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by explaining the comparison logic and return values (resolved/persisting/new). Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive; description confirms it performs a new scan without modifying system state.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and use. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (resolved/persisting/new issues). Could mention that it triggers a new scan (time/network), but overall complete for a verification tool with simple parameters.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. Tool description provides context that the scan_id is from the original scan, but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. 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?
The description clearly states it re-scans a URL after fixes and compares results, listing what it returns. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_accessibility (initial scan) and generate_fixes (suggests fixes) by being the verification step.
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?
Explicitly says 'after fixes have been applied', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but it's implied that scan_accessibility should be called first.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning, generating fixes, generating VPAT reports, and re-verifying. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (scan_accessibility, generate_fixes, generate_vpat, re_verify). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With 4 tools covering the core workflow of scanning, fixing, reporting, and re-verification, the count is well-scoped and no tools feel redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: scan accessibility issues, generate fixes, re-verify after fixes, and generate a VPAT report. No obvious gaps for the domain.
