a11y_aria_live_snippet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Devuelve el código JavaScript', not that it executes anything, and describes what the injected code does: 'registra cada anuncio de regiones dinámicas con hora, cortesía, rol y texto'. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the output and its behavior without contradicting any annotations.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Devuelve el código JavaScript') and then efficiently packs the essential details: injection contexts, the monitored topic, and the recorded fields. There is no filler or redundant content; every part earns its place.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains what is returned, how it is meant to be used, and what the returned code does. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly in its context.

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%, and the single parameter 'lang' is fully described in the schema with an enum and a clear explanation. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies. There is no gap for the description to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Devuelve el código JavaScript del monitor de anuncios aria-live', clearly stating that the tool returns a JavaScript snippet rather than performing an audit or analysis. It also explains the snippet's purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like audit, snapshot, and contrast tools. There is no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 explicitly states the intended use: 'para inyectar en una página (bookmarklet o page.evaluate)', giving clear context for when an agent should invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the siblings none obviously overlaps with generating an aria-live monitoring snippet. This is clear context without a need for deeper exclusion guidance.

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