darklens_audit_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "audit" implies a non-mutating inspection, but nothing states whether results are returned, thrown, or gate the caller, and the existence of failOn/threshold implies pass-fail behavior the description never explains. The examples of detected patterns add genuine value beyond structured fields, but the mutation/safety and failure semantics are left unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical examples earning their space by making the abstract term "dark patterns" concrete. The production-gating context lands last where it belongs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what an audit returns—score, findings list, or violation details—and it says nothing about that. For a tool with fail-threshold semantics, the missing description of result shape is a real gap even though the input side is fully covered by the schema.

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 all four parameters including url, failOn, and threshold are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about what failOn modes do or how threshold interacts with scoring beyond what the schema says.

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 (audit) and target (raw HTML, JSX, or component markup), reinforced by concrete example detections like pre-checked auto-renewal and fake countdowns. The sibling darklens_audit_url is implicitly distinguished by the emphasis on raw markup, though the description never names the URL-based alternative directly.

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?

"Before committing to production" gives a clear usage window that routes an agent toward pre-commit inspection rather than live-page auditing. It stops short of explicitly naming darklens_audit_url as the alternative for deployed pages, so the routing is inferential rather than stated.

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