audit_with_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (using an existing session, avoiding re-authentication) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it consumes the session, if it's read-only, or if it creates any records). The 'protected pages' context adds value but lacks details on what the audit does beyond that.

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, front-loaded with the action, and zero filler. The first sentence states the operation, the second explains the benefit, which is concise and efficient.

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 description is complete for the basic use case (authenticated audits), but lacks context about how to obtain a session (sibling create_session), potential alternatives (audit_url), and return value expectations since no output schema exists. It covers the core purpose but leaves some gaps given the absence of annotations/output 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 parameters are well-documented. The tool description itself adds little beyond the schema, though it does imply that sessionId is used to maintain authentication. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not further explain parameter usage or relationships.

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's action: 'Run an accessibility audit on a URL using an existing authenticated session.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('accessibility audit'), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning the existing session and protected pages, which separates it from plain audit_url.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'This allows testing protected pages without re-authenticating for each audit.' It implies it's intended for authenticated/protected content, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use audit_url instead).

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