Get Accessibility Guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, return format, or any special behaviors such as caching or versioning. This minimal transparency is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 that quickly gets to the point. It wastes no words and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate the structure of the returned guidelines, whether the response varies by wcagLevel or includeARIA settings, or any error conditions. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output info, this is inadequate.

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 description coverage is only 25% (componentName alone), and the description does not clarify the meanings of wcagLevel, includeARIA, or includeKeyboard. While 'WCAG 2.1' hints at the wcagLevel parameter, the description fails to explain how these parameters filter or shape the guidelines, adding little value 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 the tool returns WCAG 2.1 accessibility guidelines for a Material 3 component. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('accessibility guidelines'), and the qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_code and get_design_tokens.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_component_code or list_material_components. There is no mention of prerequisite knowledge, use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.

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