audit_group_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The description only states the basic action without behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 many sibling audit_group tools, the description could be more complete by explaining when to audit the 'forms' group versus others, or by listing the specific rules. It mentions '5 axe rules' which is helpful, but overall lacks comparative context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters by stating they are alternative inputs ('Provide one of: url, html, or session_id'). However, it does not describe the 'level' parameter or the semantics of each individual parameter (e.g., what 'html' expects). The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the action (audit), the resource ('forms' rule group), and the scope (5 axe rules). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the group name, making it easy for the agent to select when dealing with form-related accessibility rules.

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 specifies the inputs needed ('Provide one of: url, html, or session_id'), giving clear usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context compared to sibling audit_group tools, and does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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