Accessibility Usage Rules

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read operation is already clear. The description adds valuable context: it is deterministic, incurs no LLM cost, and lists the return content categories. This goes beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence with a colon separating the main action from details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. No redundant 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with a clear input schema and an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and returns. No additional details are needed.

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 100% (the 'palette' parameter already describes 'Array of hex values'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage constraints beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'palette WCAG matrix into actionable design-system rules'. It lists specific outputs (safe pairs, AA-only pairs, etc.), distinguishing itself from siblings like accessibility_matrix (which generates the matrix) and accessibility_check (general check).

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 a WCAG matrix is available and actionable rules are needed, and notes it is deterministic with no LLM cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like accessibility_check or accessibility_matrix.

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