argus_audit_full

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 details the scope of analysis and output format. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or constraints, though as a read-only audit these are minimal.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It efficiently lists key features without excessive verbiage, though bullet points could improve readability.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (full JSON report grouped by severity). The two parameters are fully documented. The description covers the tool’s capabilities sufficiently for an agent to invoke it.

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 both parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra context for the 'critical' parameter (escalation of console errors), going beyond the schema. This provides useful decision-making info.

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 the tool runs a deep QA pass on a URL using all analyzers, listing specific checks (Lighthouse, responsive layout, memory leaks, hover states, accessibility) and specifies the return format. The name and context distinguish it from siblings like argus_audit (likely simpler) and argus_compare.

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 use when a full audit is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or which alternative (e.g., argus_audit) to choose for lighter tasks. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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