analyze_accessibility

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

The description explains the behavioral traits: it checks multiple aspects and enriches output when libraryRoot is provided. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only (implied by 'analyzes'), and no annotations are present. Some behavioral aspects like performance or auth requirements are omitted, but the core behavior is sufficiently covered.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence establishes the purpose, the second lists specific checks, and the third explains enrichment. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value format. It mentions a 'report' and 'HelixAccessibilityReport' but does not detail what the report contains (e.g., pass/fail, scores, details). Additionally, it lacks guidance on how this tool fits with siblings like check_a11y_usage, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the enriched behavior when libraryRoot is provided alongside tagName, and notes that omitting tagName analyzes all components. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states it analyzes accessibility profiles of web components from CEM data and lists specific checks (ARIA roles, attributes, etc.). It distinguishes between analyzing one component or all. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_a11y_usage, which may have overlapping but narrower scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools like check_a11y_usage or check_color_contrast.

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