Accessibility Spatial

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does describe the kind of issues in scope, but says nothing about whether the operation mutates state, what it returns, what inputs it expects, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is largely unspecified.

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?

At two sentences, the description is compact and front-loaded with the core idea. The examples add useful specificity without padding, so the text is appropriately lean.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description omits the operational purpose and parameter semantics, and it does not connect to sibling tools. For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, this is not enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions device or xml_path. An agent must guess what these optional parameters mean, how they affect issue selection, and whether one or both are needed for meaningful output.

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 is a noun phrase ('Accessibility issues that are spatial or structural') rather than an action; it never states a verb such as detects, filters, or returns. The examples clarify scope, but without a verb or relation to sibling tools an agent cannot tell whether this is a detector, a filter, or an issue categorizer.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The sibling list (detect_issues, inspect_layout, element_context) suggests related workflows, but the description does not say when to prefer accessibility_spatial over them or what context requires this tool.

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