Prüfe Seiten-Struktur (A11Y)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool 'checks' the structure, without describing what it returns, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the action verb but not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of output format or errors.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the specific aspects checked (heading hierarchy, landmarks). It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately concise for its simple function.

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 is simple with only one parameter, and the description explains its purpose. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues or a pass/fail report). The lack of any behavioral detail beyond 'checks' leaves the agent uncertain about the result, making the description only partially complete.

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 has one parameter (postId) with a clear description ('Post/Page ID'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds minimal context by referring to 'einer Seite' (a page), which connects the postId to the page whose structure is checked. This is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it checks the accessibility structure of a page, specifically heading hierarchy and landmarks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like a11y_check_forms, a11y_check_color_contrast, and a11y_check_links, which target different 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to check a page's accessibility structure) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough to infer the use case, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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