live_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Requires Playwright' which is useful context about external dependencies. However, it doesn't disclose whether the audit is read-only, if it has side effects (e.g., page navigation), performance impact, timeout behavior, or what the output looks like. For a live navigation tool, these are significant omissions.

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 main action and scope, then the dependency requirement. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters (all schema-documented), the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit returns, whether it modifies state, or how it differs from sibling tools. The Playwright requirement is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral disclosure.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including enum values and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb (audit), resource (a live web page), and scope (accessibility, performance, and responsive checks on rendered HTML). It distinguishes itself from audit_component by specifying 'live web page' with navigation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly contrast with inspect_page or visual_diff.

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 implies usage by requiring Playwright and navigating to a URL, but doesn't state when to use this over audit_component or inspect_page. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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