Audit a local HTML file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the constraint that files must be 'beneath the configured allowed root', which is a behavioral safety detail not present in any structured field. It also reinforces the read-only nature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Render a local .html or .htm file') and key constraints ('beneath the configured allowed root', 'Read-only'). No fluff or redundant detail.

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 6 parameters (fully documented in schema), annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the file type constraint, the allowed root security boundary, the read-only nature, and the expected output (accessibility findings and corrections). Missing is explanation of what 'render' entails (e.g., headless browser, JavaScript execution), but this is minor and compensated by the schema details.

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 each parameter (filePath, width, height, standard, maxIssues, maxNodesPerIssue) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Render' and 'return accessibility findings and corrections') and resource ('local .html or .htm file beneath the configured allowed root'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_url (which works on URLs) by explicitly specifying 'local file' and the file path restriction.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the available siblings (audit_url, audit_html, etc.). It does not state alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., file must be accessible), or exclusion criteria (e.g., not for raw HTML strings). The purpose implicitly suggests local files, but no clear usage context is given.

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