get_accessibility_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether this is a read-only scan, what scope it covers (whole project vs. loaded scenes/assemblies), whether it is expensive, or what the response contains. The phrase 'script hits' hints that usages are enumerated but leaves the shape and semantics of a 'hit' undefined.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but the telegraphic style ('hits', slash-separated alternatives) makes it read like a changelog fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Structure is acceptable given the brevity but not polished.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of truth about results, and it does not describe the returned structure, the scope of the scan, or what counts as a 'script hit'. For a reporting tool this leaves too much for the agent to guess before calling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It also correctly implies the result is not scoped by any input, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 names the resource (accessibility module/package presence plus AccessibilityNode/AssistiveSupport script hits), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_physics_stack or get_localization_stack. However, it is a fragmented noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool retrieves/reports this information rather than configuring it. Purpose is inferable but not stated.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. Nothing indicates whether it should be used for a quick presence check versus a full accessibility audit.

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