audit_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral fact: the tool returns scored findings with fix suggestions. However, it omits whether this is purely static analysis (no runtime/rendered DOM), whether it mutates anything, and any size or rate constraints, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return value. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return shape (scored findings with fix suggestions), and all parameters are documented in the schema. Minor gap: it does not clarify the static-vs-runtime nature of the analysis, which matters given the live_audit sibling.

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 framework, categories, wcag_level, and component_name are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline (e.g., how framework changes parsing or what happens when categories is omitted).

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clearly bounded resource ('HTML/JSX/Vue/Svelte markup') and enumerates the three analysis dimensions (accessibility/WCAG, performance, responsive). An agent can tell it is a static markup analyzer, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as live_audit or auto_fix_component.

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?

Usage is only implied: the input types suggest 'use this when you have source markup to check.' There is no statement of when to prefer it over live_audit (runtime page auditing) or auto_fix_component (applying fixes), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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