audit_group_parsing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the tool audits 4 axe rules and requires one input, but it does not disclose what the audit entails (e.g., whether it mutates anything, requires authentication, or has rate limits). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving uncertainty about 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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and follows with input requirements. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for inputs) but is efficient.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions only 3 of 4 parameters and does not explain the output or process of the audit. The presence of an output schema helps but is not referenced. The tool has many siblings, yet no differentiation criteria are provided.

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 stating that one of 'url', 'html', or 'session_id' should be provided, implying mutual exclusivity. However, it omits the 'level' parameter entirely, which has a default of 'AA' but is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for 'level'.

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 tool audits the 'parsing' rule group with 4 axe rules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_group_aria by specifying the group name. The verb 'Audit' and resource 'parsing rule group' are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells users to 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id,' which gives input guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus other audit_group_* tools (e.g., if you need color or keyboard audits). Usage is implied but not explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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