check_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the scope of analysis (static code checks) but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., does it modify code?), error handling, or output format. The description is minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb phrase, and lists key features efficiently. No filler content.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and checks performed. It mentions WCAG standards, which is helpful context. However, it could briefly note that it is a static analysis tool (not a runtime check) to set expectations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the schema's parameter roles ('Analiz edilecek kod', 'bağlamsal analiz için') without adding deeper semantics, such as code size limits or expected format.

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 tool analyzes React/Next.js code for accessibility (a11y) and lists specific checks (semantic HTML, heading hierarchy, etc.) per WCAG standards. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_bundle or lighthouse_analyze.

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 accessibility analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_lighthouse for performance). No when-not-to or exclusion criteria are provided.

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