audit_current_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that interaction state is preserved and different engines use different DOM states. However, it does not mention rate limits, auth needs, or output behavior beyond the implied audit results.

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 well-structured with an overview followed by parameter details. No unnecessary words, though a slight reduction in technical detail could improve brevity.

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 (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the input behavior adequately but omits information about output format, error handling, or limitations. The output schema likely fills some gaps, but the description could still mention typical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and acceptable values (e.g., WCAG levels, engines list, include_best_practice). It clarifies session_id origin, which adds value.

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 audits the current page state, specifying multiple engines and interaction preservation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_axe or audit_automated_checks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides context on when to use (post-interaction) and explains how different engines work (live vs snapshot). It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the guidance is helpful.

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