analyze_alt_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important limitation (cannot assess semantic truthfulness without a vision model), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether the check is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. For an advisory check, this is partially sufficient but lacks depth.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise limitation. It is exactly as long as needed and easy 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not hint at what the advisory check returns (e.g., findings, scores, recommendations). It also omits how session_id is used and when this tool should be invoked among the many accessibility checks. For a tool that likely returns structured results, this is a significant 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 coverage is 50% (only url_or_html has a description). The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The required parameter's format is already in the schema, but session_id is left undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool's function: an advisory check for missing or generic alt text. It also specifies a limitation, which further clarifies its scope and distinguishes it from broader semantic analysis. This is a specific verb-resource pair with no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_control_names, analyze_reading_order). It implies it's for alt text issues, but offers no guidance on context or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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