check_accessibility

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'check' without explaining what the check involves (e.g., automated scan, return format, side effects). This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema or behavioral details. For a compliance check, the agent needs to know what the output looks like (e.g., a list of issues, a pass/fail status) and any prerequisites. The description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already states 'Component code to check for accessibility issues', while the tool description simply says 'Check component code for accessibility compliance', which is less informative.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'component code' for accessibility compliance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_components or generate_component. However, it could be more specific about what 'accessibility compliance' entails (e.g., WCAG standards).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_component_patterns or validate_component_design. The description lacks any context for appropriate invocation.

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