Run accessibility audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that providing a url causes navigation first, and that the tool returns the full session audit history including the fresh result. It also details the audit payload structure, covering violation counts, per-violation details, and pass/incomplete counts. This gives an agent a clear model of what happens and what to expect.

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 three sentences long and every sentence contributes: the first states the action and target, the second explains the return shape, and the third specifies the audit result contents. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return structure: pages as hex ids and audits as pageId/audit entries including the fresh result. It also covers the optional URL navigation behavior and the level of detail in each audit. For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret its output.

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 every parameter, including url, tags, detail, sessionId, and timeoutMs. The description adds context about the audit result and the URL navigation behavior, but it does not meaningfully enhance parameter-level understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: running an axe-core accessibility audit on the session page or a provided URL. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_color_contrast, which targets a single contrast check, and get_audit_guide, which is guidance-oriented. The verb 'runs' plus the resource 'axe-core accessibility audit' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear operational context: audit the current session page, or provide a url to navigate first. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as check_color_contrast or get_audit_guide, nor does it state exclusions. The usage context is useful but the comparison to sibling tools is left to inference.

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