list_manual_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 that the tool lists criteria that have no axe-core coverage, requiring manual assessment. It also includes examples. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: clear main sentence, followed by rationale in a brief paragraph, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description explains its purpose and parameter sufficiently. It provides examples of criteria and the context of compliance scoping. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 input schema only provides type and default for 'level'. The description adds meaning by explaining it's the highest conformance level to include and specifies possible values ('A' or 'AA'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it lists WCAG criteria that cannot be automated, needing human review. It uses specific verbs and resource (list + manual checks) and distinguishes from sibling list_automated_checks and other audit tools.

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 when to use this tool: for criteria without automated coverage, contrasting with automated tools. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it. However, the context is clear from the distinction.

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