audit_images

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by enumerating the audit checks (alt text, missing attributes, oversized images, lazy loading). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or whether it performs any side effects. The burden is partially met but not fully.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists concrete audit dimensions. Every element is informative, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the scope of what is audited. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a report or list of issues), which is relevant given no output schema is provided. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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% for the single parameter (url), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. According to the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully and description provides no extra value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 all images on a page, specifying the exact aspects covered: alt text coverage, missing alt attributes, oversized images, and lazy loading status. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_page or check_headings.

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 image-specific auditing but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The context of sibling tool names helps, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use when auditing page images, not for general page audits.'

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