audit_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the audit scope and available filters but does not mention network behavior, waitUntil handling, or result format. There is no annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds value: scope, categories, and filtering capability.

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?

The description is adequate for tool selection, covering purpose and key filters. But with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, missing details like waitUntil behavior and return value shape leave notable gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 helps by mapping filter categories (standard, audit type, WCAG level, version, criteria) to parameters. However, it omits waitUntil semantics and does not fully explain each parameter's formatting beyond schema enums.

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 states the specific action ('Run a SiteLint audit on a live URL') and names the audit categories (accessibility, SEO, performance, security). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings audit_html (HTML input) and check_wcag_criterion (single criterion).

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 'live URL' scoping provides clear context for when to use this tool vs audit_html, and the optional filter list gives usage flexibility. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use, but the context is strong enough.

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