a11y_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the function without revealing traits such as network activity, runtime expectations, public-URL requirements, or whether the audit affects the target site. It does not contradict any annotations, but it adds little behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and close siblings, the description is underspecified. It omits how the standard parameter changes the audit, what includeHidden does, and what kind of results the agent should expect. An agent can call it with only the required URL, but cannot make informed choices about optional inputs or interpret behavior confidently.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'standard' and 'includeHidden' parameters. It does not, leaving the agent to guess what WCAG standards are selectable and what 'includeHidden' controls. The enum on 'standard' provides some self-documentation, but the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 ('Runs an accessibility audit'), a resource ('a webpage'), and the method ('using Lighthouse accessibility checks'). It is clear and distinct from the focused a11y_check_contrast and a11y_check_images siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the broader lighthouse_audit sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lighthouse_audit, psi_analyze, or a11y_check_contrast. An agent must infer when a full Lighthouse accessibility audit is preferred over more targeted checks or other analysis tools.

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