check_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the audit scope and the specific issue categories, which implies a non-mutating audit. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether failures cause exceptions, or how the output is structured.

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 front-loads the primary action and then provides a compact list of audit checks. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it, and the enumerated checks help set expectations. However, the undocumented severity-filtering behavior and unspecified return/output format leave noticeable gaps, especially with no output schema or annotations.

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 0%: the description never mentions the 'level' parameter. The schema provides an enum and default, but the meaning of severity filtering and whether 'critical' means only critical issues or critical-and-above is left entirely to inference.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Run a built-in accessibility audit on the current page', and enumerates concrete checks such as missing alt text, heading structure, and keyboard accessibility. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_page, get_page_source, and assertion tools.

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 makes the usage context clear: run it on the current page when an accessibility audit is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct accessibility-audit sibling exists, so the guidance is adequate.

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