audit_group_sensory_and_visual_cues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the number of rules (3) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or what happens if no parameter is provided. There is no contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 concise, but it omits critical information about the 'level' parameter. It earns its place but is not as efficient as it could be because it fails to cover all schema parameters.

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 there are no annotations, the description should compensate. It lacks details about the output (though an output schema exists), the exact rules audited, and any restrictions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no behavioral hints, the description is incomplete.

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 schema has 4 parameters (url, html, level, session_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only explains url, html, and session_id as alternatives, completely ignoring the 'level' parameter (default AA). This omission leaves its purpose and default behavior unclear.

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 specifies the action ('Audit'), the exact rule group ('sensory-and-visual-cues'), and the number of rules (3 axe rules). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'audit_group_aria' by naming the specific group, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id,' which instructs the agent on required input. However, it does not explain when to use this specific group over others, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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