generate_a11y_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says a report is generated; it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects may occur, or what the report contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 no redundant words. It is appropriately compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, though 'detailed' is vague and the sentence carries no additional structural benefit.

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 there is no output schema and no annotation, the description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand what invoking the tool entails. It does not explain the scope of the report, what data is returned, or how this relates to the sibling 'audit_accessibility'. The agent would need to guess or inspect other tools to resolve these gaps.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with names, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a detailed accessibility compliance report.' It explains the tool's purpose without ambiguity, but it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling tool 'audit_accessibility', so it falls short of a full 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_accessibility' or 'check_contrast'. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over similar siblings.

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