Get WCAG audit kit

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive) cover the safety profile and the description is fully consistent with them. Beyond that, it discloses the crucial non-obvious behavior: the tool returns PENDING_EXECUTION checks and a script rather than results, requires a real browser DOM, and needs a local npm install to complete the audit.

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?

Long, but information-dense and front-loaded: purpose and the 11-check scope come first, then exclusions, then execution caveats, then return shape. A few parentheticals (axe-core version, npm command) could be trimmed, but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral 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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no destructive surface, the description is complete: it spells out the return JSON shape, the PENDING_EXECUTION status semantics, the install/run commands, and the sibling tool to use instead. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains config's purpose (customizing axe.configure() via branding overrides or rule disables) and the default behavior when omitted ('Omit for standard WCAG 2.2 AA'). It does not discuss the ruleset parameter's tag options, which the schema already enumerates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching the Designesy WCAG 2.2 AA verification framework with 11 checks (a01-a11) plus a Playwright + axe-core script template. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling designesy_score ('for a full design-contract score (not just a11y)'), so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('audit a site for accessibility violations') plus a named when-NOT-to-use case routed to designesy_score. It also clarifies the boundary that this tool does not execute the scan and that the score is produced by the caller's local run.

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