WCAGコントラスト比チェック

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses WCAG 2.1 computation for AA/AAA (normal/large text, UI components). Does not mention edge cases (e.g., alpha, invalid colors) but adequate for a straightforward 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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines core functionality, second provides usage context. Well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return structure. It says '合否を返す' (returns pass/fail) but not whether it's a boolean or object with details. For a simple tool, it's adequate but could be more precise.

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 baseline is 3. Description reinforces '文字色' and '背景色' but adds little beyond schema. Schema already describes hex format and examples, so minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes WCAG 2.1 contrast ratio and returns pass/fail for AA/AAA standards. Verb '計算する' and resource 'コントラスト比' are specific. Siblings are unrelated (e.g., count_chars, webp_convert), so no confusion.

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?

Description explicitly states use cases: Web design color verification and accessibility checking. No alternatives mentioned, but siblings are semantically distant, so this is sufficient.

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