color_check_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The verb 'Check' suggests a read-only analysis and the scope ('every text/background pair') adds behavioral context, but the description does not state whether the tool modifies anything or describe its return value. This is a partially transparent definition.

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 sentence immediately conveys the core function with no filler. The key qualifiers ('every', 'in a frame') are front-loaded. This is an ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The definition is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool with the correct nodeId and standard, and the sibling list clarifies the broader toolset. However, because there is no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what is returned (e.g., a list of violations) to fully support post-call interpretation. The missing return contract is a minor but real gap.

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 already documents both parameters fully (nodeId as 'Root frame', standard enumerated as AA/AAA with a default). The description adds no new parameter-level information, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('WCAG contrast for every text/background pair in a frame'). The 'every ... in a frame' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from a single-pair check like check_contrast. It unequivocally states what the tool does.

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 the intended use case: a full-frame audit of text/background contrast. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_contrast or audit_accessibility, nor say when not to use it. Guidance on alternatives is left to inference.

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