age_inclusive_design_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool returns recommendations and sets a safety boundary ('inclusive design guidance only'), indicating it is non-destructive and advisory. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 an audit tool with no output schema, the description outlines input and purpose well. Lacks detail on output format (e.g., list of recommendations), but is mostly adequate.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds that age groups include children, adults, older users, but the schema already describes the age_groups parameter. No significant added value beyond schema.

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 audits a user flow or interface for age-inclusive design, covering children, adults, and older users, and returns recommendations. This differentiates it from siblings like accessibility_audit (broader) and neurodiversity_design_check.

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 age-inclusive audits but does not explicitly guide when to choose this over siblings like accessibility_audit or cultural_context_check. The safety boundary is noted but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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