argus_audit

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a one-pass detection sweep, returns findings with severity/type/message/url and a summary, explains cache behavior (per-session, max 20 entries, LRU eviction), details the critical parameter effect, and notes the prerequisite (Chrome with --remote-debugging-port=9222). No behavioral aspects are hidden.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and list of checks. It is somewhat long due to the enumeration, but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., listing 'returns { findings... }' is helpful but partly repeats schema). Still efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many checks), no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description completely covers what it does, how to use it, what it returns (including structure), prerequisites, and when to avoid it. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the cache parameter's practical use ('useful in tight fix loops') and the critical parameter's scenario ('Set true for business-critical routes'), which enhances agent understanding.

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 it performs a fast QA audit on a URL using Chrome DevTools Protocol, enumerates numerous specific checks, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool argus_audit_full by explicitly stating what argus_audit_full covers (Lighthouse scoring, CSS analysis, etc.). This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and differentiates from siblings.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use for CI smoke tests and pre-deploy gates'), provides guidance on the cache parameter for tight fix loops, and explicitly names the alternative tool for other use cases ('For Lighthouse scoring... use argus_audit_full'). This meets the highest standard for usage guidance.

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