audit_a11y

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

Describes that it uses axe-core and returns violation details. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. Lacks mention of side effects, but it's a read-only audit.

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 action and result, no filler. Efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, return values, and usage. With 4 parameters and no output schema, description is adequate. Could mention rendering assumption or framework support, but schema covers framework enum.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: 'on a rendered component' hints code is a component. No further parameter details.

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?

Clearly states it runs an accessibility audit using axe-core on a rendered component, returning WCAG violations. Distinguishes itself from sibling rendering tools by being an audit tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to catch a11y issues before shipping,' giving context. No mention of when not to use or alternatives, but no sibling audit tools exist.

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