list_wcag_rules

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return data but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Only mentions informational nature of version parameter. Lacks behavioral context.

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?

Description is two concise paragraphs: first explains purpose and return fields, second lists arguments. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language. Efficiently front-loaded with key 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?

Given low complexity, optional parameters, and presence of output schema, description covers essential aspects. It mentions defaults and informational parameter. Could explicitly state that both parameters are optional, but schema already indicates no required params. Overall sufficient.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains version is informational and level is highest conformance to include, with defaults. This adds value over the schema's titles and defaults, but does not elaborate on allowed values or constraints beyond what is implicit.

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?

Description clearly states it lists WCAG success criteria with automation coverage, and specifies return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other types of checks (e.g., list_automated_checks, list_axe_rules) by focusing on WCAG criteria. Could be more explicit about when to use this vs other list 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?

Implied usage: to see WCAG rules with coverage. Provides filtering by version and level but does not explain when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_manual_checks or list_automated_checks. No guidance on context or prerequisites.

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