check_motion_accessibility

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the assessment combines declared motion parameters with supplied markup rather than markup alone, but says nothing about what a finding looks like, thresholds applied, or severity levels.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the signal categories packed into a tight list. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what comes back — a pass/fail verdict, a findings list, severities — and it does not. Combined with 0% parameter coverage on a 4-parameter tool, an agent knows roughly what domain this checks but not what it returns or how to interpret the declared-motion inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it characterizes the three non-HTML inputs collectively as 'declared motion', which is meaningful framing. It never explains what flashesPerSecond, autonomousSeconds, or hasEquivalentStill mean or what limits they are checked against, leaving the bulk of parameter meaning to infer from bare names, types, and min/max bounds.

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 gives a specific verb (Review) and a specific resource (declared motion plus supplied HTML) scoped to three concrete signal classes: reduced-motion, pause, and scroll-safety. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like validate_motion_spec or check_accessibility_markup, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It implies you call this when you have HTML plus declared motion values needing an accessibility pass, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of how it differs from check_accessibility_markup or validate_motion_spec. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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