accessibility_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the heuristic's actual mechanics: contrast is measured against an opaque Inkscape page background when present, otherwise white, and only direct hex fills are considered. That tells the agent when results will be unreliable, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the heuristic caveats. The semicolon clause is dense but each part carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. What remains missing is any parameter explanation and any routing guidance among the many inspect/preflight siblings, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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 0% for two required parameters, and the description never mentions path or workspaceId. It does not compensate for the gap, so the agent must infer that path is an SVG file and workspaceId a workspace identifier from the schema patterns alone.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource: heuristic SVG text-contrast and document reading-order diagnostics. That scope is distinct from siblings like document_inspect, document_preflight, and color_management_inspect, so an agent can identify what this tool uniquely covers, though the phrasing is dense.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (document_inspect, document_preflight, color_management_inspect, palette_inspect all sit nearby), and no prerequisites such as needing an SVG document in the workspace. Usage is only implied by the word 'accessibility'.

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