alethia_audit_wcag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it operates on the current page, is powered by axe-core, covers a dynamic ruleset rather than a fixed checklist, and returns findings with rule IDs, impact levels, and issue counts. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes: what it does, what it checks, and when to call it plus return format. No filler or redundancy.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, usage timing, and return value. It also distinguishes from the NIST audit sibling, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool operates on the current page with no required inputs, which is useful context. There are no parameter details to elaborate on.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on the current page using axe-core. It lists specific checks (alt text, form labels, keyboard access, etc.) and distinguishes itself from a fixed checklist, which differentiates it from the sibling alethia_audit_nist.

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 gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Call after navigating with alethia_tell.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the WCAG-specific scope and context make the appropriate use case clear, especially compared to the NIST audit sibling.

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