audit_perceivable

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

The description mentions it runs 29 axe rules, which gives some insight into behavior, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short of comprehensive transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then specify input requirements. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and input. However, it omits details about the 'level' parameter and how session_id differs from url/html (e.g., using an existing session). Still, it is largely complete for a straightforward audit 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?

The description adds meaning by stating that only one of url, html, or session_id should be provided, which is not indicated in the schema. However, it does not mention the 'level' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for missing parameter descriptions.

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 WCAG 'Perceivable' principle by running 29 specific axe rules, which differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_operable. It also specifies the required input format (url, html, or session_id), making the purpose 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 implies the tool is for auditing the 'Perceivable' principle and requires one of three inputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names provide some contextual clues, but no direct guidance is given.

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