audit_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns issues with severity levels and an overall score, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made to the frame or describe how the access token is used. The term 'audits' suggests non-destructive behavior, but more explicit transparency would be better.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence states the verb and resource with specific checks; the second sentence describes the return value. There is no fluff—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and 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 tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is audited, what criteria are checked, and that output includes issues with severity and an overall score. It could be improved by explicitly stating read-only behavior and more detail on output structure, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (node_id, file_key, access_token) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it only reiterates the frame context. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Audits' with a clear resource ('a Figma frame') and enumerates concrete accessibility checks (contrast ratios, touch targets, alt text, font sizes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as none of the alternatives focus on accessibility auditing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when an accessibility audit of a Figma frame is needed—but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like inspect_layout or lint_handoff_readiness, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The usage context is implied, not explicitly stated.

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