check_accessibility

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only scan, specifies what it checks, and provides the return format including issue_count and issues list. This sufficiently informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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?

Extremely concise with two parts: main action in one sentence, then bullet points for checks, followed by return structure. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and output schema provided in description, the tool is fully described. The agent knows what it does, what it returns, and that it has no side effects.

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?

No parameters defined, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Description does not need to add parameter meaning. The high baseline of 4 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?

Clearly states the tool scans the document for accessibility issues, specifically checking images for missing alt text and tables for missing header rows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fix or set accessibility-related attributes.

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 wanting to check accessibility, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like set_alt_text or set_header_row. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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