neuron_audit_page

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. It does disclose that the tool runs multiple audits, returns a combined report, and replaces five separate calls. However, it does not state whether these audits are read-only, whether they can trigger network requests or page changes, how partial failures are handled, or what the combined report structure looks like. This is adequate but leaves 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the audit list immediately following. The second sentence succinctly communicates relationship to sibling tools. Every phrase earns its place.

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 composite tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is strong: it names all five audit categories, states the combined-report output, and identifies the sibling alternatives it replaces. It could be more complete by clarifying whether the tool is read-only, how the combined report is structured, and when an agent should instead use a single specialized audit tool, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the short audit option strings from the schema to their full meanings: 'a11y' → accessibility (WCAG), 'security' → security scan, 'performance' → performance snapshot, 'seo' → SEO audit, and 'errors' → console errors. It also clarifies that all audits run together by default, reinforcing the schema's 'default: all' note.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run all quality audits on a page in one call.' It enumerates exactly which audits are included—accessibility (WCAG), security scan, performance snapshot, SEO audit, and console errors—and states that it returns a combined report. This clearly differentiates it from the individual sibling audit tools by framing it as their aggregate replacement.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool: when all quality audits are needed in one call. It names the alternatives directly with 'Replaces 5 separate tool calls (a11y_audit + security_scan + perf_snapshot + seo_audit + get_errors),' making the routing decision unambiguous against the relevant sibling tools.

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