a11y_aria_live_snippet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the runtime behavior of the generated code in useful detail: it logs every dynamic-region announcement with time, politeness, role and text, and renders a visible on-screen panel — exactly what an agent needs to predict the result. It does not restate safety/profile, but returning a code string is inherently side-effect-free.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the artifact and its behavior, using a parenthetical for the deployment modes. No filler, though the em-dash clause packs several details densely.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool yields, and it does by enumerating the logged fields and the visible panel. For a one-optional-param code generator this is essentially complete, with only the exact return shape left implicit.

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 optional lang param is fully documented in the schema ('monitor panel language (es default)'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema about the parameter.

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 (Returns) and resource (injectable JavaScript for an aria-live announcement monitor), and clarifies the artifact type an agent will receive. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (audits, contrast, diff, keyboard), which instead measure or mutate a page.

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 parenthetical '(bookmarklet or page.evaluate)' implies the two deployment contexts, giving implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer the scenario.

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