neurodiversity_design_check

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Explicitly states 'Safety boundary: inclusive design guidance only,' clarifying what it won't do. Does not detail return format or side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, covering scope and boundary. 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?

Adequate for a simple audit tool with no output schema. Mentions conditions and safety boundary. Missing return format details, but context signals show no output schema, so description suffices.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds context about conditions but does not significantly augment schema understanding. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (audit), the resource (UI description), and the specific scope (neurodiversity-aware design covering ADHD, autism, dyslexia, sensory sensitivities). Distinguishes from siblings like accessibility_audit by focusing on neurodiversity conditions.

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 (when auditing for neurodiversity) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Mentions a safety boundary but no specific context for choosing this over siblings.

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