Tap

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the description's burden. The description doesn't contradict these annotations. However, it adds no context about what the accessibility tree contains, its format, or the implications of openWorldHint=true (external page interaction).

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?

Extremely concise at three words with no redundancy. However, given the rich sibling context and lack of output schema, the description is arguably too terse—omitting scoping context like 'of the current page' that would help situate the tool without sacrificing much brevity.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter, read-only tool with safety annotations, but incomplete regarding the return value format and the specific accessibility API being used (AXTree, etc.). Lacks differentiation from the numerous other 'inspect_*' siblings available.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as the properties object is empty).

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 states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('accessibility tree'), translating the tool name 'inspect_a11y' into a full sentence. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'inspect_dom' or 'inspect_element' regarding when to use accessibility trees versus other inspection targets, and assumes the user understands what 'a11y' refers to.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over 'inspect_dom' or 'inspect_element', nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring an active page context). The description is purely definitional with no contextual usage advice.

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