list_wcag_rules

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, external dependencies, or performance considerations. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Every part is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it could mention that the rules follow the WCAG 2.1 standard and lack prerequisites or error handling information.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no enum or description in schema). The description compensates by explaining the 'level' parameter with acceptable values 'A', 'AA', 'AAA' and default 'AA', adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 lists WCAG 2.1 rules for a given conformance level, using specific verbs ('Listet') and resource ('WCAG 2.1 Regeln'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., check_color_contrast) which perform specific checks, not listing rules.

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 implies usage when needing to fetch WCAG rules by level, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity.

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