a11y_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It describes what the audit checks but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies the page, or returns specific results. The absence of side-effect disclosure and return format leaves a significant transparency gap.

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 that begins with the action and resource, followed by a concise list of audited items. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool, so the description is mostly adequate, but it omits what the audit actually returns (e.g., a list of violations, scores, or a pass/fail report). Since no output schema exists, this missing return-value detail is a notable gap. Usage guidance relative to sibling tools is also 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately implies no inputs are required. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific action ('Run an accessibility audit') and identifies the resource (the current page). It enumerates concrete checks (alt text, labels, headings, roles), which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like a11y_tree or a11y_query that serve different inspection purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to audit the current page for accessibility issues) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like a11y_tree or a11y_query. It offers no exclusions or guidance on when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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