aether_check_html

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses static heuristic checks, no live URL/browser requirement, and optional RAG-powered fixes, but it does not clarify whether RAG enrichment triggers external calls, how 'optional' is controlled, or what the output shape is. That leaves a noticeable gap.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: definition, method, and usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 2-parameter read-only check with a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool does, how (static heuristics, optional RAG), and when to use it. It slightly falters by not describing the return shape or the precise trigger for RAG enrichment, but nothing needed to invoke it successfully 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 100%, so the schema already documents both html and context. The free-text description does not add detail about parameter format or edge cases, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Analyze'), a concrete resource ('an HTML snippet'), and an explicit goal ('WCAG accessibility issues'). It also distinguishes itself from live-scanning siblings by stating it works without a live URL or browser.

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 last sentence gives direct usage guidance: use it when a developer pastes HTML or asks about a component's accessibility. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use them, so it misses the top tier.

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