run_accessibility_check

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

The description offers only 'deterministic' as a behavioral trait, which is vague and unexplained. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it loads a page, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that runs checks.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded. The use of 'deterministic' adds nuance without extra words. Though brevity is good, it omits crucial context, so it is not a perfect score.

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 the lack of an output schema, annotations, and the presence of many sibling accessibility tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what checks are performed, what results look like, or how it differs from 'run_accessibility_audit' and similar tools. The single sentence is not enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It never mentions the 'pathname' parameter, its default, or its purpose. While the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and schema, the description adds no semantics beyond the structured input, failing to connect the action to the parameter.

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 that the tool 'Run deterministic accessibility checks' – a specific verb (run) and resource (accessibility checks). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'run_accessibility_audit' or other accessibility tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation. It is still more informative than a tautology.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_accessibility_audit' or 'test_keyboard_navigation'. There is no mention of intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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