analyze_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the analysis dimensions (color contrast, text sizes, touch targets, semantic structure) and states that it produces actionable recommendations. The word 'Analyzes' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent enough for an analysis tool.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the checks. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller receives; it only says 'provides actionable recommendations' without detailing result structure or how level/includeRecommendations affect output. Invocation is feasible because required parameters are in the schema, but output semantics remain vague.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but it does align with the intent of parameters like includeRecommendations and level by describing WCAG checks and recommendations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') with a clear resource ('a screen') and domain ('WCAG 2.1 accessibility compliance'), then lists concrete checks. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which target accessibility analysis.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need WCAG compliance analysis of a screen. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but there are no sibling tools offering the same capability, so the purpose alone provides adequate guidance.

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