browser_a11y

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 behavioral disclosure. It offers none—no details about the audit process, output format, side effects, auth requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is a bare noun phrase with zero behavioral context.

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 woefully under-specified at only three words. This is not appropriate conciseness but rather a failure to provide necessary detail. There is no structure or front-loading of key information; it simply restates the topic.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, invocation context, expected behavior, or return value from this description alone. It does not meet the minimum requirements for safe and correct use.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., 'URL to audit', 'axe tags filter'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema documents all parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Accessibility audit' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name (a11y = accessibility) without a verb or resource. It does not specify the action taken or the object audited. No differentiation from sibling tools is provided, and it reads as a title rather than a functional description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no context to help an agent decide between this and other browser_* tools.

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