check-name-requirements

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is checked and how.

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?

Given the complexity of checking name requirements, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output will be (e.g., boolean result, detailed explanation, or error messages), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'role' parameter clearly documented as 'The ARIA role name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('role'), specifying what it checks ('if a role requires an accessible name and how it can be provided'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-required-attributes' by focusing specifically on name requirements rather than general attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-roles-requiring-name', which might overlap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-roles-requiring-name' and 'validate-role-attributes', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It implies usage for checking name requirements but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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