run_accessibility_test

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful dependency (chrome-devtools-mcp must be running for DOM/accessibility tree inspection), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe read-only vs. mutating behavior, runtime cost, or what the results look like despite no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a scannable bullet list of analyzed aspects, then usage and prerequisites. Slightly verbose with the six-bullet enumeration, but each bullet adds concrete scope. Efficient overall.

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 annotations and no output schema, this captures purpose, scope, and a key runtime prerequisite, but omits result format, whether it mutates anything, and how to interpret findings vs. sibling tools. Adequate but incomplete for a multi-faceted analysis tool.

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 url, wcagLevel, and includeWarnings with defaults. The description's mention of WCAG 2.1 at Level A, AA, or AAA loosely reinforces the wcagLevel parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (perform) and resource (accessibility testing on a web application), then enumerates exactly what it analyzes (WCAG compliance, contrast, ARIA, keyboard nav, forms, alt text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_visual_test and run_seo_test.

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?

Says 'Use this tool when you need to evaluate a website's accessibility for users with disabilities,' which implies usage but doesn't explicitly contrast against alternatives like run_full_test or run_visual_test, which likely also touch accessibility. A prerequisite is given (chrome-devtools-mcp must be running), which helps, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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