check_touch_targets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check', implying a read-only inspection, but provides no details on what is measured, how results are returned, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, so it is concise, but it is also under-specified. While it avoids wordiness, the extreme brevity may hinder understanding, making it not fully 'appropriately sized' for the tool's context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two unexplained parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'touch target sizes' means, what standards are checked, or how the tool behaves, leaving too much ambiguity for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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?

Both parameters (taskId and pathname) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description does not explain their roles or how they affect the check. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings entirely implicit.

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 the tool's specific purpose: 'Check mobile touch target sizes.' The verb 'check' and resource 'mobile touch target sizes' are precise, and this distinguishes it from sibling accessibility tools like run_accessibility_audit or test_keyboard_navigation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention how it fits into a workflow or whether it should be used before other checks, leaving the agent without decision-useful context.

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