audit_automated_checks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions high-confidence pass/fail but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or rate limits. The absence of such details leaves gaps.

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 with two sentences plus an explicit instruction. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence adds unique value with 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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool has a simple interface (4 parameters), the description adequately covers the tool's function and usage. It also directs to list_manual_checks for non-automated criteria, making the context complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that url, html, and session_id are mutually exclusive inputs and that level controls the WCAG conformance level. This adds meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 explicitly states it runs ALL automated WCAG checks at once, using axe rules for every WCAG 2.2 criterion up to a specified level. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the entire machine-testable surface and refers to list_manual_checks for non-automatable criteria.

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?

It clearly instructs the agent to provide one of url, html, or session_id. It also indicates when to use list_manual_checks for non-automated criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for specific criteria).

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