run_best_practices_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Run a best practices audit' which suggests an analysis operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it modifies the page, execution time, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity implied by 'best practices audit' and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit entails, what it returns, or how it differs from other audit tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 states the action ('Run a best practices audit') and target ('on the current page'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'best practices' entails compared to sibling tools like run_accessibility_audit or run_seo_audit, lacking specific differentiation. It doesn't restate the name/title tautologically but could be more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_accessibility_audit or run_seo_audit. The description implies usage on a current page but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection among similar audit siblings.

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