audit_group_language

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, does not modify data, or describe any side effects. The term 'audit' is vague without further explanation of the action or outcome.

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: a single sentence with parenthetical detail. It front-loads the action and avoids unnecessary words, earning 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details about parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity is implied but not enforced) and does not address the 'level' parameter. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description adds meaning by indicating that url, html, and session_id are mutually exclusive inputs. However, it completely ignores the 'level' parameter (default 'AA'), and since schema description coverage is 0%, more explanation was needed for all parameters.

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 what the tool does: it audits the 'language' rule group, specifying it includes 4 axe rules. It also explicitly states the required input format (one of url, html, or session_id), which distinguishes it from sibling audit tools.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states the input requirement but lacks context about use cases or when not to use it, which is important given the many sibling audit group tools.

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