lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output is one line per offending node, each line shows the node as accessible_tree renders it followed by the problem, and it clarifies a scoping rule (images are only flagged when not inside a named control).

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The phrasing ('has no name to say for') is slightly cryptic, costing it a point, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (one line per node, node rendering plus the defect). Combined with 100% schema coverage for the three parameters and annotations covering the read-only nature, this is close to complete, though it omits anything about result volume or ordering.

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 ignore, window, and session. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how ignore regexes match, or window vs app=RE syntax), so the baseline of 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 states a specific function: reporting focusable nodes (controls, images, other focus targets) that lack an accessible name for a screen reader to announce. It is clearly an accessibility audit and references the accessible_tree sibling as the format reference, though it does not explicitly position itself as the lint counterpart to that tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. accessible_tree is mentioned only as a format reference, not as an alternative the agent should choose between, so the agent gets no routing help for deciding when to run lint versus inspecting the tree directly.

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