audit-image-alt-text

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. However, it only states the purpose and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it fetches the page, what it returns, or any side effects. The audit nature suggests a read operation but is not explicit, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and key subject. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and a straightforward purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the audit produces or returns. However, it stops at the action itself without mentioning the output format (e.g., report, score, list of missing alts), prerequisites, or any behavioral details. This leaves a notable gap for the user to understand the tool's full usage.

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 input schema already provides a description for the single 'url' parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond implying that a webpage is needed, nor does it specify constraints like accessibility or format beyond what the schema states.

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's function with a specific verb ('Audit') and a concrete resource ('image alt text on a webpage'). It also specifies the dual objectives of 'accessibility and SEO compliance', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit-seo' that likely cover broader SEO aspects.

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 used when auditing image alt text, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention related sibling tools or clarify scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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