accessibility_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-fetching of URLs and the two modes, but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, error behavior, or any destructive actions. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, two modes, and no output schema or annotations, the description provides essential mode distinctions but omits details on return format, scoring interpretation, error handling, or locale usage. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the two modes (crawl vs. session) and the role of pages parameter as optional alternative to url/urls, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Description clearly states tool audits web pages for WCAG 2.2 compliance and distinguishes two modes (crawl and session), specifying 86 success criteria. It effectively communicates the primary resource and action, differentiating from siblings like cognitive_accessibility_audit by focusing on general WCAG compliance.

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?

Description explains when to use each mode: crawl for per-page scoring with URL/HTML, session for obtaining a WCAG checklist. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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