accessibility_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature of the check reasonably clear and mentions that instructions are provided if permission is missing, but it does not specify the exact return format, whether user interaction might be involved, or explicitly confirm that no state is changed.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the practical context and the fallback behavior.

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 parameterless permission check, the description covers what it does, why it matters, and what happens if permission is missing. Adding an explicit note about the return value or confirming no side effects would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Accessibility permissions') and ties it directly to UI element detection and programmatic interaction. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling accessibility tools that operate on the tree or perform clicks.

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?

Explicitly identifies the prerequisite context: accessibility permissions are required for UI element detection and programmatic interaction. It also explains what happens if permissions are not granted. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls just 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.