audit_operable

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 that the tool runs 14 axe rules, but does not state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Minimal additional context is provided beyond the name.

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 at two sentences, with no redundant information. Key information about purpose and input requirements is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 high number of sibling audit tools, the description should offer more context about what the 'Operable' principle covers (e.g., keyboard, navigable, enough time) and any prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the description lacks completeness for effective tool selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It partially explains that url, html, and session_id are alternatives, but it does not describe the 'level' parameter or any constraints. Three out of four parameters are lightly covered, but the schema provides no descriptive help.

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 WCAG 'Operable' principle and runs specifically 14 axe rules mapped to that principle. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit_perceivable' or 'audit_understandable'.

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 only provides input guidance ('Provide one of: url, html, or session_id') but gives no context on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'audit_perceivable' or 'audit_axe'. No explicit when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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