playguard_a11y_audit

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the return shape (violations grouped by rule, severity-ordered, with selectors, html excerpt, and fix) and the state dependency of the audit. It doesn't mention runtime cost or that results reflect only the current DOM state beyond the re-run hint, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contract, then the workflow caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so precisely, plus the navigate/re-run workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so both `tags` and `selector` are already well documented, including the default tag set and the replace-vs-add pitfall. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run an axe-core accessibility audit on the page currently open in the browser_* browser.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_snapshot, browser_evaluate, or browser_console_messages, which gather different artifacts from the same page.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance — 'Navigate first; re-run after a click/state change to audit dialogs or menus' — which tells the agent the precondition and the re-invocation pattern. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to audit, so it falls short of a 5.

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