check_accessibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states what is checked but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or how the input parameters are processed. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It avoids redundancy and includes no filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but lacks details on expected return values, usage examples, or how to frame inputs. For a simple check tool, it is minimally viable but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (colors, layout, typography), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds some context by linking these parameters to accessibility aspects (e.g., color contrast, readability), but it does not clarify how the parameters are interpreted or combined, so it only meets the baseline.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('design accessibility'), and enumerates specific aspects: color contrast, typography readability, and inclusive design principles. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_visual, the scope is well-defined and understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing check_accessibility over sibling audit tools. The only implied usage is from the tool's name and description, which is insufficient.

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