audit_group_tables

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

The description discloses that it audits axe rules for tables and requires one of three inputs. No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden, but it lacks details on behavior (e.g., output shape, side effects, error conditions). The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and input requirements with no wasted words. It could be structured slightly better 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 the 4 parameters, a large sibling set, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'level' parameter, how to choose among url/html/session_id, or how this tool differs from other group audits beyond the name.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no semantic context. The description only mentions three of four parameters (url, html, session_id) and does not explain the 'level' parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 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 it audits the 'tables' rule group, which distinguishes it from sibling audit tools for other groups. The verb 'Audit' and resource 'tables rule group (6 axe rules)' is specific and informative.

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 says 'Provide one of: url, html, or session_id', which gives clear context on input requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other group audits, though the group name implies the scope.

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