vibeside_audit_accessibility

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: 'automated' hints the audit is non-interactive, but nothing is said about whether a page must already be loaded, execution cost, permission or auth needs, or whether anything is mutated. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that states the action, standard, and scope up front. Nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return shape (e.g., violations vs passes, severity, node locations), especially since includePasses and maxViolations only make sense against a known response structure. That critical return-value context is entirely absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and enum values — baseline 3 applies. The description's category list merely echoes the schema's 'categories' enum without adding format or behavior detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('WCAG 2.2 AA / AAA accessibility audit') and enumerates the audited categories (contrast, keyboard, aria, forms, images, structure, target-size). This implicitly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like vibeside_inspect_contrast or vibeside_inspect_aria_element, but it never names a sibling or alternative explicitly.

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 word 'comprehensive' vs the granular inspect_* siblings implies this is the full-sweep option, but the description never states when to prefer it over vibeside_get_accessibility_tree, vibeside_inspect_contrast, or vibeside_inspect_aria_element. Usage must be inferred from scope alone.

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