accessibility_audit

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

No annotations provided; description carries burden. It states the tool checks for violations and reports issues with fix instructions, but does not mention side effects (none expected) or specific behaviors like URL accessibility requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, no redundant information.

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?

Covers purpose, standards, and output report style. Lacks explicit mention of return format or limitations, but sufficient for a straightforward audit tool with one parameter.

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?

Single parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds context about axe-core and WCAG but not about the parameter itself. 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?

Description clearly states the tool runs an automated accessibility audit with axe-core, specifies WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA, and distinguishes from siblings like seo_audit or performance_audit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like lighthouse_audit or compare_sites. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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