validate-role-attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does (validation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns detailed error messages, validation rules source (e.g., WAI-ARIA spec version), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('validate', 'ARIA attributes', 'allowed, required, or prohibited', 'for a specific role') earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a validation tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the validation result looks like (e.g., pass/fail, detailed report) or behavioral aspects, leaving room for improvement in contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('role' and 'attributes') adequately. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain attribute format constraints or role validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('validate') and target ('ARIA attributes') with precise scope ('allowed, required, or prohibited for a specific role'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-required-attributes' (which only returns required ones) or 'get-prohibited-attributes' (only prohibited) by covering all three validation categories.

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 usage context (validating ARIA attribute compliance for a role) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get-required-attributes' for just required checks or 'check-name-requirements' for name-specific validation. It provides clear functional context but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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