delimit_story_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it scans for issues and lists them, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, writes reports, or any side effects. It does not clarify the output format or whether files are modified. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a list of checks. Every sentence provides value with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and checks, though it could briefly mention how results are returned (e.g., report or list). However, the output schema likely covers that, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (project_path and standards). 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 it runs WCAG accessibility checks, specifies the file types scanned (HTML/JSX/TSX), and lists specific checks like missing alt, labels, empty buttons, heading order, and aria-hidden on focusable. This verb+resource+scope directly distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_scan or delimit_lint which lack such specificity.

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 use when wanting to check accessibility of HTML/JSX/TSX files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., delimit_scan, delimit_lint) or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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