audit_kotlin_accessibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully enumerates the specific checks performed, but it does not explicitly describe the output format or confirm that the tool is read-only/non-mutating. 'Audits' implies analysis, but the lack of explicit safety or return information leaves a gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists concrete checks without filler. Every clause adds actionable detail, and the structure makes the tool's scope immediately understandable.

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?

For a one-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what input is needed and what will be checked. It could explicitly state what the tool returns or whether it modifies code, but the low complexity and clear input schema make the definition sufficient for correct invocation.

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% because codeSnippet is described as 'Jetpack Compose code to audit.' The description adds value by enumerating the audit criteria, helping the user understand what kind of Compose code is relevant and what will be inspected. This goes slightly beyond the baseline schema-only meaning.

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 ('Audits') with a clear resource ('Jetpack Compose code') and concrete standards (WCAG 2.1 AA), plus named checks like Modifier.semantics, contentDescription, and 48x48dp touch targets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools focused on codebase or security.

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 context is clear: use this tool when Jetpack Compose code needs an accessibility audit against WCAG 2.1 AA. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the domain is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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