pitch_audit_contrast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output structure (contrast matrix, failures, recommendations), which tells the agent what to expect. It omits access/permission or rate-limit context, but the audit framing makes the read-only, non-destructive nature evident.

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. Purpose and deliverable are front-loaded, and the second sentence is devoted entirely to routing the agent to the correct sibling.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with a nested preferences object and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the key alternative-routing context. It is nearly complete; only authentication/usage constraints are absent.

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 parameters are already well documented, including enum meanings. The description adds no syntax or format detail for color/colors beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Audit the contrast') on a specific resource ('the palette built from a brand color') and enumerates the deliverable (pass/fail pairs, what to change). It is immediately distinguishable from a11y_validate (single pair) and audit_all_combinations (every pair).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use a11y_validate for a single foreground/background pair, and notes audit_all_combinations covers every pair rather than the meaningful ones. Conditions for choosing alternatives are stated, not implied.

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