Prüfe Links (A11Y)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Prüft' (checks), implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, what it returns, whether it modifies content, or any permission requirements. The examples given (empty links, generic texts) add some insight but not enough.

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 front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides concrete examples of what it checks. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool has a simple schema and no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It does not. It also lacks context about the scope (site-wide vs. per-post) and potential side effects, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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% (postId is described as 'Post/Page ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on how postId scopes the link check, and 'alle Links' could be misconstrued as site-wide. It adds no extra semantic value 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 uses a specific verb 'Prüft' (checks) with a clear resource 'alle Links' (all links) and scope 'auf Accessibility' (for accessibility), listing concrete examples ('leere Links, generische Texte'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like a11y_check_forms and a11y_check_color_contrast, which target other accessibility aspects.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for auditing link accessibility on a post/page (implied by postId). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a 5.

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