check_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'ensures' accessibility but does not explain what side effects occur, whether it only reports findings, what happens on failure, or what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose, though a bit more behavioral detail would make the sentence more valuable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out what the tool returns or how the agent can interpret results. While the tool has only one parameter, the missing behavioral and output context makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'projectPath' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: checking UI-related modules for accessibility per WCAG. It is distinguishable from sibling quality tools like analyze_code_quality or evaluate_performance because it names accessibility specifically. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 the tool is relevant to UI-related modules, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it fits among the sibling quality-check tools.

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