audit_design

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

The description is transparent about the audit scope by listing the exact checks performed. However, without annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it temporarily resizes the viewport (given the width parameter), or what format the results take. These are meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence uses a colon to introduce a compact list of checks. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 definition clearly explains what the tool does and where it operates, but it omits any description of the output or result format. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this missing information leaves an agent uncertain how to interpret the tool's response.

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?

The input schema already documents the width parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, but none is needed given the schema's clarity.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('automated design and accessibility checks on the current page') and enumerates concrete checks (horizontal overflow, tap targets, WCAG contrast, alt text, text size, clipping). This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from siblings like screenshot or read_console.

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 when to use it ('on the current page') but does not explicitly provide when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. It does not say how to choose between audit_design and check_responsive, which is a likely overlapping sibling.

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