format_accessibility_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description adds context by specifying the output as a human-readable summary, which is not covered by the annotation. It does not mention error handling or side effects beyond the read-only nature, but given the annotation, the added context is sufficient.

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 (8 words) that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Format'. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple formatting tool, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input (parsed violations) and output (human-readable summary), and the schema covers the parameter type. It does not mention error handling or the exact output format, but these are minor and the overall context is sufficient.

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 already provides a clear description for the parameter ('JSON string from parse_ufixit_violations'). The tool description refers to 'parsed violations' which is essentially the same information, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Format') and the object ('parsed violations') and the output ('human-readable summary'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch, create, or delete data. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it should be used after parsing violations (since it takes parsed violations), but does not state that directly or mention any alternative or complementary tools.

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