audit_bilingual_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses specific audit checks (BiDi text isolation, touch targets, focus rings, WCAG 2.2 AA), giving insight into behavior. However, it does not describe return format or explicitly confirm that it does not modify input, though 'audits' implies analysis.

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?

A single sentence lists all key audit areas without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly dense, every phrase adds value and the structure is efficient for an audit tool description.

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?

The description omits necessary context: parameter semantics for two of three params, output/return format, and any caveats. Given no output schema or annotations, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameter values.

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 only 33% (only 'markup' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'markup' but provides no detail on 'checkContrast' or 'checkBidiSemantics' — their expected values or semantics remain unclear. The tool description does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 specifies a unique verb ('audits') and resource ('HTML/JSX code markup') with a specific scope (Arabic screen reader compatibility, BiDi, touch targets, focus rings, WCAG 2.2 AA). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'accessibility_audit' and other Arabic-focused tools.

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 Arabic-specific accessibility auditing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the generic 'accessibility_audit'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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