audit_group_semantics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the input requirement and the number of rules (14), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains (though an output schema exists), or any side effects. The description lacks important 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 a single sentence, which is brief. It front-loads the verb 'Audit'. While concise, it omits necessary details such as the purpose of each parameter and the nature of the output. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'level' parameter, how to choose parameter options, or what the audit results look like. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description should provide enough context for an agent to decide to use this tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning for all parameters. It clarifies that 'url', 'html', and 'session_id' are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, it ignores the fourth parameter 'level' (with default 'AA'), and provides no format or validation details for any parameter. This leaves significant gaps.

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 that the tool audits the 'semantics' rule group, which includes 14 axe rules. It indicates the verb 'Audit' and the resource 'semantics rule group'. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling audit_group_* tools, which perform similar audits for other rule groups.

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 a usage requirement: 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id.' This implies that exactly one of these inputs should be supplied. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other audit groups or any conditions for exclusion. The guidance is minimal.

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