check_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It lists what is checked but omits details like output format (e.g., returns violations?), side effects, or prerequisites (page loaded). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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?

Two sentences, 155 characters. Purpose is front-loaded, checks are listed concisely. No redundant or extra information. Efficient and clear.

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 single-param audit tool, the description covers purpose but lacks any indication of return value or output. Without an output schema, the agent needs to know what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail) to use it effectively. This is a significant gap.

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?

Description completely ignores the 'level' parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent gets no guidance on valid values (all, critical, serious, moderate, minor) or how this affects the audit. The description fails to add meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action 'Run a built-in accessibility audit on the current page' and lists specific checks, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on assertions, clicks, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for accessibility auditing, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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