explain_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's educational nature and what it provides (WCAG references, code examples), but does not specify the output format or any behavioral edge cases. For a read-only explanatory tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that packs the core purpose and deliverable list efficiently without filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit segments.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and the description covers its educational scope well. The missing return format is minor for an explain tool, and the schema handles parameter documentation. Overall, the description is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both ruleId and context well described. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose: 'Explain what an accessibility issue means in plain language' with a specific scope (why it matters, how to fix it, WCAG references, code examples). It distinguishes from sibling audit/fix tools by emphasizing educational content, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage when a user needs to understand an accessibility issue, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_quick_fixes or filter_issues. Context is present but exclusions are absent.

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