figma_check_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the two operational modes (REST vs plugin bridge), enumerates the checks performed, and specifies the output format (WCAG criterion, severity, actionable fix). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only/non-destructive, but 'audit' strongly implies it. This is robust context beyond a simple one-liner.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes additional detail into three compact paragraphs: execution mode, checklist, and output format. Every sentence adds unique value, and the WCAG references are grouped logically. Despite its length, it remains scannable and dense with no filler.

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 is moderately complex, with no output schema, so the description appropriately covers the issue format (criterion, severity, fix). It also covers the main execution modes and the exact WCAG checks. It could mention defaults (level AA, categories all) or potential limitations, but those are already implied by the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description (e.g., level enum with default, nodeId for scoping, fileKey to enable REST, categories list). The tool description adds only slight clarification that 'fileKey' enables the REST mode, which is already in the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Comprehensive WCAG 2.1 accessibility audit'. It enumerates the exact WCAG criteria checked, which clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling Figma tools (which are for editing, exporting, retrieval, etc.). This is a unique and unambiguous purpose.

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 clear situational context: 'Works via REST API (no plugin needed) when fileKey is provided, or via plugin bridge for the live canvas.' This tells the agent how to choose the execution mode based on whether a fileKey is available. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative audit tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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