audit_tap_targets

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral details: headless chromium rendering, real getBoundingClientRect measurements, and output sorted worst-first. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing collected elements, output, and modes. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description fully describes the output format (per-element fix table with selector, role, text, measured sizes, deficit, CSS fix). It covers both modes and default minSize, making it complete for an agent.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains url mode browser requirement, minSize default, and details elements array structure (selector, w, h, etc.). This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool audits tap targets for WCAG 2.5.5 / Apple 44pt, lists the collected elements (a, button, etc.), and explains the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by its specific focus on tap target size.

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 two modes (URL vs elements snapshot) and when to use each, including the requirement for headless chromium for URL mode. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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