audit_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior (network requests blocked) but doesn't describe the return format or whether scripts in the HTML execute. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the audit verb implies non-mutating behavior, but more detail would help.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase contributes: purpose, use case, and a key behavioral constraint. No filler.

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?

The description explains the purpose, the offline context, and a key limitation. With the schema fully documenting all parameters, this is reasonably complete for an audit tool. The main omission is an explicit description of the return value or report structure, but the core usage is well covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'html' parameter with 'raw HTML content' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Run an axe-core audit on raw HTML content.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_url by emphasizing raw HTML input rather than a URL.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Useful for testing components or generated markup without a running server.' The network-blocking limitation also helps decide when to use this tool versus a URL-based audit. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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