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 does not state whether the audit is read-only, what it returns (list of issues, pass/fail, etc.), or any potential side effects. The description only lists what it checks, not how it behaves.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It covers the key aspects of the tool efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool is moderately complex with no output schema, and the description does not explain what the audit returns or how results are presented. It also lacks context on how the results might be used or any limitations. However, it does convey the purpose clearly, so it is minimally adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (selector and includeWarnings), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, not even mentioning that the audit can be scoped via selector or adjusted for warnings.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Run accessibility audit') and lists concrete audit areas (missing alt text, labels, heading structure, color contrast, ARIA issues), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_aria_tree or get_dom.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for accessibility auditing, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to related tools such as get_aria_tree.

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