a11y-toolkit: Blindfold journey verdict

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: deterministic scoring, the pass criterion definition, friction-to-WCAG mapping, the evidence-pack handoff, and the conditional file write. The one nuance it states ("writes a file only when output_path is given") sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, though a new opt-in artifact is not destructive and is not a real contradiction. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes when the journey input is malformed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the core action and the return shape, and most sentences carry distinct information. It loses a point for promotional framing ("the capability no other accessibility tool has") and for restating the blindfold-task prerequisite twice with slightly different phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return contract inline (verdict enum, 0-100 score, findings field list, summary, rules) plus the file-write side effect. Combined with the stated preconditions and the WCAG-mapping behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the relationship between parameters — steps carry per-step friction either as a journey_* pattern key or as {criterion, severity, issue, remediation}, and those map into the returned findings. It also clarifies output_path's effect (full verdict written to file instead of returned inline). It doesn't add format detail for url/lang/task beyond what the schema already states.

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 and artifact: it converts a blindfold journey's friction log into a deterministic scored verdict with pass/partial/fail/blocked. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the rest of the toolkit ("the capability no other accessibility tool has") and from conformance-oriented siblings ("Task usability evidence, never conformance"). An agent can distinguish it from a11y_audit_url or a11y_keyboard without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions and sequencing: "Run only after a real blindfold attempt (the blindfold-task prompt)" and "act by accessible name, log friction per step, then call this." It names the companion prompt as the alternative workflow and draws the boundary against conformance tooling, so both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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