a11y_announce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only observation of what a screen reader would receive, which is meaningful, but says nothing about how the target element must be specified (existing/visible/hidden elements), whether it errors on ambiguity, or any access requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output and followed by a concrete comparison use case. No filler, though the second sentence doubles as usage guidance that could have been stated more crisply.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on purpose. Still, for a parameterized tool with no annotations and an undocumented target argument, the definition leaves the agent guessing on the one input it must supply.

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 0% and the single required 'target' parameter has no format guidance in either schema or description. The description adds only that it addresses 'one element', leaving open whether target is a selector, ref id, or node index — a real gap for the only input.

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 states a specific retrieval: the accessibility-tree entry (role, accessible name, states) for a single element, which is clearer than the bare verb 'announce' would suggest. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like a11y_aria_snapshot or a11y_nvda_speech, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 second sentence gives an implied use case ('compare with the visible text to find missing, wrong or duplicated names'), which is useful routing context. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of the overlapping sibling tools that would help an agent choose correctly.

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