delimit_story_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares 'read-only static analysis' and specifies the backend call, making the behavioral intent clear. Lacks mention of permissions or rate limits, but the core safety is well-communicated.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, separate sections for usage, exclusions, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it provides purpose, explicit usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, behavioral side effects (read-only), and backend reference. The output schema covers return values, so no need for that here.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail on project_path or standards beyond what the schema provides, though it lists example issues checked, which indirectly informs parameter usage.

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 scans HTML/JSX/TSX for WCAG accessibility issues, using a specific verb ('Scan') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings delimit_design_validate_responsive (layout) and delimit_story_visual_test (visual regression).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (as a CI gate or pre-merge check for common a11y problems) and when not to use (responsive layout, visual regression), naming specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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