adb_a11y_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the audit scope (specific checks) and output format (structured report with severity and rule violations), which is adequate for a non-mutating diagnostic tool.

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?

Two sentences: first states the purpose concisely, second lists the checks and output. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 complexity, the description covers checks and output (structured report) adequately. No output schema exists, but the description mentions severity and rule violations, which is sufficient for a diagnostic audit tool.

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 only parameter (device) has 100% schema coverage with a description. The tool description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning baseline 3.

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 runs an automated accessibility audit on the current screen and lists specific checks (labels, touch targets, content-descriptions, focusability, duplicate descriptions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_a11y_touch_targets and adb_a11y_tree.

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 for accessibility auditing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_a11y_touch_targets (which may focus on touch targets), nor does it provide when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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