run_website_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the safety trait 'non-destructive', which is useful, but it omits any details about what the audit actually does, how long it takes, what it returns, or whether it interacts with external systems. This is insufficient for a multi-agent tool with several parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. The structure is clean and immediately conveys the core action.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, multiple agent types, no annotations, no output schema), the one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'multi-agent' entails, what the 'agents' parameter options mean, when includeLiveWebsite should be true, or what the output looks like. Sibling tools provide more detailed descriptions, making this one feel inadequate.

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 any of the three parameters (agents, pathname, includeLiveWebsite). The schema itself provides enum values and defaults, but the description adds no semantic context to help the agent decide how to set these parameters. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('website audit'), and specifies 'multi-agent' which distinguishes it from single-agent audit tools like run_accessibility_audit or run_lighthouse_audit. It is concise and the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. While 'multi-agent' implies a comprehensive audit, the description does not state that it should be used for a broad audit or that specific audit tools should be used for targeted checks. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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