a11y_audit_component

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 add useful scope information by enumerating what the audit checks, which helps an agent understand the tool's coverage. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies code, what output format is returned, or whether it produces suggestions versus a raw report.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The action and target are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the audit scope. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.

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 input side is well covered by the schema and description, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the audit returns or how results are presented. For a tool whose primary output is a set of accessibility findings, this is a notable gap, though the tool's purpose is still understandable.

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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions React/HTML, which aligns with the code parameter, but adds nothing about componentName or how the parameters interact.

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 verb (audit) and resource (React/HTML component), then lists concrete audit dimensions: WCAG compliance, ARIA attributes, semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, and color contrast. It distinguishes the tool from obvious siblings like a11y_suggest_improvements by framing this as auditing rather than improving, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as a11y_suggest_improvements or codegen_react_component. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria; usage is only implied by the word 'audit' and the tool's name.

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