set_wcag_level

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It notes that the tool returns a confirmation with tags, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or persistence behavior. As a setter, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a formatted list of level options, and clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every element adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers available levels and return value. However, it omits whether the setting is session-persistent or page-specific, which would fully contextualize the tool's effect.

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?

The input schema provides only a string type for 'level' with 0% description coverage. The description significantly enriches this by listing all valid values (A, AA, AAA, 21A, 21AA, 22AA) with explanatory context, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 sets WCAG conformance levels for accessibility testing, with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('WCAG conformance level'). It lists available level options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_page or configure_rules.

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 the available level options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context (e.g., set before scanning) is implied rather than explicit.

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