check_aria

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: runs specific axe-core rules, returns violations and incomplete categories, and warns that incomplete results require human review. It does not contradict any annotations. While it lacks details on performance or rate limits, it is transparent for a validation tool.

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 two sentences, efficiently stating the purpose and then providing key details about rules, output types, and usage warnings. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function, rules used, and the nature of results (violations vs. incomplete). It could mention the format of output items, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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 only parameter 'html' is described in the schema as 'HTML to test for ARIA correctness', and the tool description calls it an 'HTML snippet', which adds minor clarity. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds limited additional 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 it validates ARIA attributes and accessible name/role/value usage in HTML snippets, specifying the axe-core rules used. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_color_contrast or scan_html.

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 gives clear context on when to use: for ARIA validation of HTML snippets. It advises that 'incomplete' results need human review and should not be auto-fixed, which is a helpful guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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