suggest-role

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 the tool 'suggests' roles but doesn't clarify what 'suggests' entails—e.g., whether it returns a list, single role, or explanations; if it's based on heuristics or a database; or any limitations like rate constraints or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one input parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, more elaboration would be beneficial, but it meets a bare minimum for understanding what the tool does.

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 single parameter 'description' documented as 'Description of the UI component (e.g., "dropdown menu", "modal dialog", "tab interface")'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format constraints or examples not in the schema. With high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest appropriate ARIA roles based on a description of the UI component.' It specifies the verb ('suggest') and resource ('ARIA roles'), and the input parameter clarifies it works from UI component descriptions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-role' or 'search-roles', which prevents a perfect score.

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 many sibling tools related to ARIA roles (e.g., 'get-role', 'search-roles', 'list-roles'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's purpose is clear, but usage relative to other tools is unspecified.

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