Audit page (WCAG)

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it is deterministic (no LLM), uses axe-core via Playwright headless Chromium, and returns structured violations with selectors and colors. However, it misses details like prerequisites for URL accessibility or potential limitations.

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 consists of two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states primary action and method; the second describes deterministic nature and output format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter fully described in schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information about behavior, output format, and deterministic nature. It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds context to the 'url' parameter by specifying allowed formats (http(s):// or file://) and scope (public target or local mirror). This adds value beyond the schema's basic description, but the parameter is straightforward.

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 audits a web page against WCAG rules using axe-core, is deterministic, and returns structured violations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fix_contrast (which fixes issues) and generate_alt_text (which generates alt text), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for auditing before fixing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simple_fixes or generate_report. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, limiting its helpfulness for selection.

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