cognitive_accessibility_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses safety boundary ('design guidance only') indicating it does not modify content. States it returns actionable recommendations, clarifying behavioral scope.

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 plus a safety boundary line. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and safety boundary. Adequate but could mention that output is structured or provide example.

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 covers 100% parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about cognitive accessibility dimensions but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema. 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?

Describes a specific audit for cognitive accessibility, listing aspects (plain language, reading level, structure, clarity) and outputs actionable recommendations. Distinct from sibling 'accessibility_audit' which is likely broader.

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?

Implies usage for cognitive accessibility assessments via the description, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like 'accessibility_audit' or 'neurodiversity_design_check'. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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