analyze_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what is analyzed (contrast, color blindness, WCAG compliance) but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, score, list of issues), how it processes input, or any limitations. For an analysis tool, this leaves significant ambiguity about expected output and side effects.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key aspects. It is concise without being under-specified; every word adds value. It could arguably be slightly longer to include behavioral details, but that is a completeness concern, not a conciseness issue.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the analysis produces. It does not. It also omits any context about when to use this tool versus check_color_contrast or analyze_color_scheme. The one-paragraph description is complete only for stating the broad topic, not for practical invocation.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter 'image_data', already described as 'Base64 encoded image data'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter, so no deduction is warranted, but there is no added value from the description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with a clear resource 'design accessibility' and enumerates distinct aspects (contrast, color blindness, WCAG compliance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_color_contrast, which focuses narrowly on contrast, and critique_design, which is broader design feedback. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 the tool is used for accessibility analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. It gives enough context to infer usage for accessibility-related queries, but not more.

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