audit_accessibility

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

No annotations provided, so description fully describes behavior: non-destructive analysis, covers 25 specific WCAG 2.1 checks, returns detailed output including score, grade, issue counts, fix instructions, and passed checks. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences that are informative and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value, though the list of checks could be slightly shortened. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns (score, grade, etc.). Slightly missing explicit output format details, but complete for expected use.

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?

Only parameter 'html' has a schema description 'Full HTML string to audit'. The tool description adds meaning by specifying that the audit covers WCAG 2.1 checks and lists them, enriching the parameter's purpose 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?

Clearly states 'Run a 25-check WCAG 2.1 accessibility audit' with a specific verb and resource. Lists covered checks and outputs. No sibling tools overlap with this functionality, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

Implies usage for auditing HTML accessibility but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. Context from siblings suggests it is the only accessibility tool, but no direct comparison is made.

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