audit_responsive_visibility

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's non-destructive read operation. The description adds context about requiring headless chromium and the return format, disclosing key behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: first the main action, then categorization, then return format, then requirement. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (table of fields) and prerequisites (headless chromium). Tool complexity is moderate, and the description covers all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying default breakpoints (390, 768, 1440, 2160) and default viewport height (900), which are not in the schema. This aids agent in understanding defaults without guessing.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: rendering a URL at multiple breakpoints and flagging elements hidden on mobile. It categorizes findings as 'likely-oversight' or 'intentional', providing clear differentiation from other audit tools in the sibling list.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like audit_page or audit_content. The context is implied by the tool's specific focus, but no direct guidance is provided.

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