aura_visual_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: a hard Chrome dependency, the failure mode ('honest BROWSER_UNAVAILABLE'), and a network-security constraint ('Loopback only with allowLocal:true'). It does not state whether captures persist to disk or that the operation is non-mutating, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Three telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the mode table, with prerequisites last. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter, three-mode tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain which URL parameters belong to which mode and what the caller receives back. It covers prerequisites and one flag, leaving the majority of the parameter surface and all output expectations undescribed.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only allowLocal is given semantics ('Loopback only with allowLocal:true'), and 'live-dom or static-html' hints at a mode/workflow choice without mapping clearly to url/buildUrl/referenceUrl, waitStrategy, viewport, or settleMs.

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 names a specific verb set (capture/analyze) and decomposes the tool into three named modes with glosses: capture = real browser screenshot, structure = section band map (live-dom or static-html), compare = reference vs build mismatches. That is concrete enough to know what each invocation does, though it does not distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling aura_inspo_compare.

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?

Mode names imply when each is used, and the Chrome/loopback conditions give real invocation prerequisites. However there is no explicit routing against the sibling compare tools (aura_inspo_compare, aura_award_inspect), so selection still requires inference.

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