review_code

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the tool finds issues, suggests fixes, and references WAI-ARIA patterns. Lacks details on output format or edge cases, but adequate for an analysis tool.

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-line purpose followed by concise arg/return docs. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action.

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 the tool's simplicity (two params, returns issues), the description covers inputs and outputs sufficiently. With an output schema presumably available, full completeness is achieved.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds context for 'code' (acceptable formats) and 'component_type' (examples like modal, dropdown), improving understanding beyond type 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?

Clearly states 'Review code for accessibility issues and suggest fixes,' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings (check_contrast, get_pattern, list_patterns) which focus on contrast or pattern retrieval.

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?

Describes the context for use (reviewing code for accessibility) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. Clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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