Accessibility scan (text-only)

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 clearly discloses what is audited, what does not count, and the output form ('grouped text report with unique, addressable selectors'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or authentication needs, but 'audit' and 'scan' imply non-mutating behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes the tool identity, the second enumerates concrete checks, and the third describes the output. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Combined with the 100%-covered schema and the description's explicit output format, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not cover prerequisites like authentication or page-load state, but the schema's reload and viewport parameters cover the main operational concerns.

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 all four parameters are already fully documented. The description adds context about audit targets but no additional parameter-level meaning, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 action ('audit'), a specific target ('live DOM'), and a distinguishing scope ('Zero-image', 'WCAG foundation'). Enumerates exact checks so an agent can tell it apart from visual review or screenshot tools without opening the schema.

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 explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but 'Zero-image' and 'WCAG foundation' make the intended context clear versus visual/design siblings. The CI-gate behavior described in the maxIssues parameter adds practical context for when to use it in a verification pipeline.

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