aether_verify_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism, the engine used, and the specific returned metrics. It does not mention side effects (e.g., network requests, runtime, rate limits) or explicitly state it is read-only, which would be expected for a verification tool. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then modes, then outputs. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and two modes, the description covers modes, required parameter relationships, and return fields. It leaves ambiguity about what happens if both url and fixedHtml are provided simultaneously, and whether baseline is mandatory for a delta in URL mode (schema marks it optional). These minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mode-dependent roles of parameters: url for URL mode, fixedHtml/originalHtml for snippet mode, and baseline for delta calculation. This clarifies relationships beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 ('verify'), resource ('WCAG fix'), and engine ('Playwright + axe-core'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the authoritative 'did the fix work?' signal, and outlines two distinct modes (URL and snippet) with measurable outputs.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each mode (URL preferred when a URL exists; snippet for pre-deploy diffing) and explains the purpose of the tool as post-fix verification. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like aether_check_html or aether_scan_and_fix, leaving the selection among them to inference.

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