a11y_suggest_improvements

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 indicates a read-only suggestion action by the word 'suggest,' but it does not disclose output structure, whether issues are required to tailor suggestions, effects on the code, or any limitations. The behavioral disclosure is too thin for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 with no extraneous words. It communicates the core action, target, specificity, and output format efficiently.

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 must supply enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It leaves unclear how the optional 'issuess' parameter affects behavior, what the response looks like beyond code examples, and whether an audit or issue list is expected. This is inadequate for confident invocation.

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?

The schema covers both parameters fully with descriptions for 'code' and 'issuess.' The description adds only the framing that suggestions are accessibility-specific and include code examples; it does not add syntax, formatting, or behavior details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('accessibility improvement suggestions'), and a target ('a component'), and adds the outcome 'with code examples.' It is conceptually distinct from the sibling a11y_audit_component, but it does not explicitly name the alternative, so full sibling differentiation is absent.

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 given about when to use this tool versus a11y_audit_component or codegen_react_component. The description implies it is for improving an existing component, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to an audit.

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