Compare focus/tab order against rendered bounding-box order to identify reading-order mismatches on web pages. Provides advisory evidence for accessibility audits.
Advisory check: compare focus/tab order with rendered bounding-box order. It is not a substitute for a human reading-order assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | ||
| url_or_html | Yes | A public http(s) URL, or an HTML document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the check is advisory and not a substitute for human assessment, which is useful. However, it does not explain what the operation actually returns, whether it needs a rendered page, or what limitations apply beyond the human-substitute caveat, so coverage is only moderate.
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 short sentences with no redundant content. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important limitation is stated immediately after. Every sentence adds value.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and one key limitation. However, it lacks any mention of return/output behavior and leaves session_id semantically unexplained. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: url_or_html is documented in the schema, but session_id has no schema description. The tool description itself provides no parameter-level explanation, so it does not compensate for the gap. An agent cannot infer what session_id is for or how it affects the analysis.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'compare focus/tab order with rendered bounding-box order.' It clearly identifies this as an advisory check about reading order, which distinguishes it from most sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related tools like analyze_keyboard_paths, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies usage as an advisory, non-authoritative check and explicitly says it is 'not a substitute for a human reading-order assessment.' This gives some when-not-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternative tools or state when this tool should be preferred over siblings. The usage context is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.