run_accessibility_audit

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs axe-core and custom checks, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, what it returns, if it modifies state, or any prerequisites. This is minimal transparency for an execution tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It delivers core information without padding.

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 having only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain parameter usage, return behavior, or how it differs from closely named siblings. This leaves the tool under-specified for an AI 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention parameters 'taskId' or 'pathname' at all. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema properties, failing to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'axe-core and custom accessibility checks', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'run_accessibility_check', which likely serves a similar role.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_accessibility_check' or 'run_lighthouse_audit'. The description only gives a general statement of function with no contextual cues or exclusions.

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