analyze_keyboard_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the check is advisory and static, and that it avoids simulating full flows. It does not address side effects, network behavior, or output format, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler; the key 'static/advisory' scope is front-loaded. The exclusion of interaction simulation is useful and earned. It is concise, though slightly under-specified.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is incomplete: it does not describe what the check returns, what 'advisory' means in practice, or how session_id affects the analysis. An agent has enough to infer basic behavior but not enough to confidently use it.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. url_or_html is documented in the schema, but session_id has no description and the tool description does not clarify it or how the two parameters interact.

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 identifies the tool's specific function as a keyboard reachability check, and 'static'/'advisory' conveys its scope. It is distinct from sibling analysis tools like analyze_alt_text or analyze_control_names, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 statement 'It does not simulate full interaction flows' provides an implied exclusion for dynamic interaction testing. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as run_accessibility_review or provide concrete use cases.

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