list_automated_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (list of criteria with axe rules) and mentions a per-criterion tool. It does not discuss side effects, auth, or pagination, but for a read-only listing, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and quickly gets to the args. Two paragraphs, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured, but still efficient.

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?

Given one optional parameter with default and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns and how it relates to sibling tools, without needing to detail output format.

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 description explains the level parameter: 'Highest conformance level to include: "A" or "AA" (default).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines type string and default. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.

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 'List the WCAG criteria that CAN be automated, with the axe rules behind each,' specifying the verb (list), resource (WCAG criteria), and scope (automated). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_manual_checks and list_wcag_rules.

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 explains the tool's purpose and links it to automated-check tools (check_wcag_<n>, audit_automated_checks), telling when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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