a11y-toolkit: Coverage ledger (persistent)

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

The description explicitly describes persistent state accumulation and a record action that adds audit results, which is a write-oriented behavior. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, which directly contradicts the described mutation and accumulation. This is an annotation contradiction that severely undermines the agent's ability to predict the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, lists actions, and explains persistence in three sentences. The provenance mention 'from Cloudflare's security-audit-skill' is slightly extraneous, but overall every substantive part earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and call implications, but it does not. It also omits what the 'informe' object should contain and how ledger_path is resolved. While the high-level purpose is clear, the annotation contradiction and missing operational details leave an agent under-equipped to invoke record correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning to the action enum values and clarifies the persistent context, but it does not explain the structure of the 'informe' object or the ledger_path behavior beyond the schema. It meets the baseline but does not compensate for the nested object ambiguity.

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 identifies a specific resource (a persistent coverage ledger) and names three distinct actions with concrete effects: record, gaps, and summary. This clearly differentiates it from sibling audit and analysis tools, as it is the stateful tracking layer rather than an auditing 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?

The action descriptions imply when to use each behavior—record after an audit, gaps to find unchecked URLs, summary for portfolio overview—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. It does not name sibling audit tools or state exclusions, so the usage context is only implied, not fully specified.

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