aether_scan_and_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior: scanning, RAG-powered fix generation, return data (violations paired with fixHtml, explanations, WCAG references), and the effect of maxFixes:0 and verifyFixes. It does not confirm whether the operation is read-only or requires special permissions, but for a scanner this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each with a purpose: the first states the core action, the second names the return artifacts, the third gives a fast-path tip, and the fourth provides routing guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is 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?

Given the moderate complexity of 6 params and a nested spa object, the description covers the essential decision points: what it does, what it returns, the scan-only option, and when to choose it. No output schema exists, but the description lists the key fields returned, making it complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could mention that url and spa are mutually exclusive, but the schema already does.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'one-call' combined mode and mentions maxFixes:0 for scan-only, but the schema already documents that. It doesn't materially expand on the url/spa interaction beyond what the schema descriptions state.

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-resource pair: scan a URL or SPA for WCAG 2.1 AA violations and generate RAG-powered fixes in one call. It also includes the output shape (violations with fixHtml, explanations, technique references), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aether_check_html or aether_get_fix.

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?

It explicitly recommends this tool for accessibility auditing and tells the agent to use it when a developer asks to check or fix accessibility. It also provides a concrete alternative within the same tool (maxFixes:0 for scan-only). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or describe when NOT to use it, but the primary recommendation is clear.

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