Prüfe Bilder (A11Y)

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

The description discloses only the basic check action, without explaining the output format, read-only nature, or what constitutes 'accessibility' beyond alt texts. The scope is ambiguous: 'alle Bilder' suggests site-wide, while the postId parameter implies a single post, leaving the agent uncertain about the operational contract.

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, compact sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it sacrifices critical context, so while it is concise, it is under-specified rather than optimally balanced.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values, side effects, and scope. It fails to clarify whether the check applies to all images in the post or site, what the tool returns (e.g., list of missing alts), and how it relates to the a11y_generate_report or image_find_missing_alt workflow.

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 fully describes the single parameter (postId - 'Post/Page ID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, such as whether postId is required for a specific scope or how it filters images, so it relies entirely on 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 a specific action ('Prüft' - checks) applied to a specific resource ('alle Bilder' - all images) with a clear focus ('Alt-Texte und Accessibility'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like image_find_missing_alt or a11y_check_forms, making it less sharply differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as a11y_check_forms, image_find_missing_alt, or a11y_generate_report. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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