audit_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a sandbox page is created to analyze the markup, which is useful context, but does not disclose whether the HTML is sent externally, how the sandbox is handled, or any security implications. This is moderate transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the key behavioral detail in the second sentence. Exemplary conciseness.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters (6 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain any of the required parameters, the meaning of 'sitelint', the expected input format for html, or the structure of audit results. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional exploration.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters, but it only hints at the standards parameter ('WCAG/SEO') and says nothing about auditTypes, wcagLevels, wcagVersions, wcagCriteria, or waitUntil. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or examples.

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 raw HTML snippets against WCAG/SEO standards, using a sandbox page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: audit_url presumably audits URLs, and check_wcag_criterion checks specific criteria. The verb 'audit' and resource 'raw HTML snippet' 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 phrase 'raw HTML snippet' provides clear context: use this when you have markup to audit rather than a URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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