Accessibility Fix Plan Generator

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimal. The description compensates by disclosing write-to-disk behavior, fallback mechanism, and potential write failure. It does not explicitly state whether the file is overwritten, but the response always includes planPath.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (preferred workflow, fallback, write location, response). While slightly verbose, each sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with core function.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response includes planPath. It covers all usage scenarios, write location pitfalls, and parameter behaviors. Complete for a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects.

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%, but the description adds significant context: scanId vs scan as preferred/fallback, default values for compact and writeToDisk, and limitations (server keeps last 10 scans). This aids the agent in parameter selection beyond 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 tool converts a scan result into a structured AccessibilityFixPlan and writes to a file. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing run_accessibility_scan as a prerequisite and update_fix_status as a separate tool.

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 provides preferred workflow (step 1: run_accessibility_scan, step 2: generate_fix_plan with scanId) and fallback workflow (pass full scan JSON). Also details write location and environment variable configuration, guiding the agent on when to use which approach.

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