run_checks_on_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool does not open a new page but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. While auditing is typically non-destructive, the lack of affirmative safety disclosure is a gap, though the description's emphasis on 'audit' implies no mutation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage context. No redundant words; every sentence adds value. It is structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what checks are available, and the return structure (referencing test_url). It could be more self-contained by detailing the return format, but referencing a sibling tool is acceptable. Error conditions are not mentioned, but the description is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the check types (visual, accessibility, etc.) similarly to the schema's enum, and notes the default is all checks. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the expected values.

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 runs audit checks (visual/accessibility/functionality/seo/performance/geo) against the current page in a session, distinguishing itself from the sibling tool test_url by noting it does not open a new page. The verb 'run' and resource 'audit checks on a session's current page' are specific and 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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'after your interactions' and 'to audit a state you reached by clicking/filling.' It also contrasts with test_url, telling the agent not to use this tool when a new page needs to be opened. This provides clear context and exclusions.

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