audit_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what is checked but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or modifies the node, nor does it mention permissions, performance, or error behavior.

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 sentence followed by a list of checks. It is front-loaded with the main action and concise with no wasted words.

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 performs a full audit and has no output schema, the description should indicate what the output is (e.g., a report, modifications, or boolean). It is incomplete about return behavior, which is critical for an auditing tool.

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% with a single parameter described as 'Root node to audit'. The tool description adds context by referring to 'node tree', which implies the root and its children. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs a full accessibility audit on a node tree, listing specific checks (contrast, touch targets, font sizes, focus indicators). This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_contrast or responsive_check.

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 implies this is a comprehensive audit tool, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., check_contrast for contrast-only checks) or when not to use it. It provides clear context for usage but lacks exclusions.

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