accessibility_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool audits but does not reveal whether it is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or what the output format is. This leaves a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the core action, resource, and specific audit criteria without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the audit returns, how parameters influence it, and any prerequisites. It lacks all such context, making it incomplete for an agent to decide on invocation and interpret results.

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 only 33% (only 'markup' has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining 'checkContrast' or 'checkBidiSemantics' or how they relate to the audit. Since coverage is low, the description should have added meaning, but it does not.

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 the verb 'Audits' and the resource 'HTML/JSX code markup', then enumerates specific checks (dir="rtl", lang="ar", BiDi, touch targets, focus rings, WCAG 2.2 AA). This makes the tool's purpose highly specific and distinguishable from generic audits.

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?

The description implies usage for auditing Arabic accessibility, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like audit_bilingual_accessibility. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative info.

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