브라우저 접근성 감사

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already provided, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it launches a real browser, runs axe plus dynamic checks (focus, target size, skip navigation), and is KWCAG-grounded. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could mention side effects like screenshots or network activity more explicitly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and method, then a clear usage instruction and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, and a prerequisite well. However, given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested objects, low schema coverage), the description does not fully prepare an agent to configure the audit correctly—especially around output handling, timeouts, and scoping options.

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 only 40% with 10 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameter meaning. It partially explains the 'checks' concept by naming axe, focus, target size, and skip navigation, but it does not clarify url constraints, viewport, timeoutMs, outputDir, screenshot, maxFindings, or excludeRules. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific action ('opens the URL in a real browser and performs an audit') and a concrete standard (KWCAG 2.2) with specific dynamic checks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_html or check_contrast, which are narrower or static checks.

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 clearly states when to call it ('site inspection / certification preparation') and gives an explicit prerequisite: check browser_status first. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it relative to siblings, but the context and prerequisite are concrete enough.

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