analyze_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only guarantees, permissions, or rate limits. The description only states the action without transparency about effects.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, followed by specific aspects. It is concise and efficient with no redundant 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?

The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose for an agent to decide when to call it. Although there is no output schema, the description implies the analysis result without detailing the return format, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of input parameter descriptions.

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?

The schema provides high coverage (100%) with descriptions for all three parameters (raw_text, has_audio, has_images). The description adds context about accessibility barriers but does not substantially enhance the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (analyze), the resource (parsed lesson), and the specific focus (accessibility barriers like missing captions, diagram descriptions, and language). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parse_lesson_file by targeting analysis rather than parsing.

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 gives context ('parsed lesson') implying it should follow parsing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for selection.

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