run_accessibility_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool renders with Playwright, runs multiple backend checks (axe-core, AccessLens, QualWeb, static advisories), returns 'one human-review report', and explicitly states 'Do not edit code; present the report and wait for explicit approval.' This conveys that it is a read-only analysis action with no side effects on code, and that it will not proceed without user consent. Minor omissions like session_id behavior or potential rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 one dense but efficient sentence, front-loading the 'Preferred one-call workflow' tagline and then listing the checks and outcomes. It avoids redundancy and stays within a reasonable length for a compound tool. It could be slightly clearer with line breaks, but it is appropriately sized without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what it renders, which checks it runs, what it returns (a human-review report), and the required behavior (no code edits, wait for approval). It does not describe the report's structure or potential errors, but for an agent to invoke and handle the result, the main steps are covered. The session_id parameter is unaddressed, which is a small gap in completeness.

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 50%: url_or_html is described, but session_id is not. The description adds value by explaining that url_or_html can be a public HTTP URL or an HTML document, and that QualWeb ACT Rules are only run 'when an URL is supplied.' However, it does not explain the purpose or usage of session_id (e.g., for continuing an existing review session), leaving an agent uncertain about when and why to pass it. This partial compensation is not fully sufficient.

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 a specific, compound action: render a URL/HTML once, run multiple accessibility checks (axe-core, AccessLens, QualWeb ACT Rules, and static advisories), and return a single human-review report. It explicitly differentiates itself as the 'preferred one-call workflow' and lists the checks, distinguishing it from the sibling analysis tools that focus on single aspects (e.g., analyze_reading_order, analyze_alt_text).

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 positions itself as the 'preferred one-call workflow' for a full accessibility review, and clarifies that code should not be edited; the agent should present the report and wait for explicit approval. It implies this is the go-to for comprehensive reviews, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use the more granular sibling tools (e.g., 'use analyze_reading_order for a focused check'). This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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