HTML 정적 접근성 검사

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it runs without a browser, performs static analysis only, and explicitly discloses that contrast, focus indication, and target size checks are not fully performed and are marked as 'browser audit required'. This is honest, specific, and materially shapes agent expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: first states what the tool does, second states when to call it, third states the key browserless limitation. Everything earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only static checker with an output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation context, and behavioral limitations well. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming sibling tools for the browser-required checks or clarifying network/auth assumptions, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the html/path either-or relationship by mentioning both HTML strings and local HTML files, but it adds no new meaning for baseUrl, ruleset, maxFindings, or excludeRules. With moderate schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (static accessibility inspection), a clear resource (HTML strings or local HTML files), and a concrete standard (KWCAG 2.2). The addition of 'static' and 'without a browser' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_contrast and audit_url.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: 'must call when writing, modifying, or reviewing web UI code'. It also implies a boundary by stating that rendering-dependent checks are only marked as needing browser audit, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives for when a browser audit is required.

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