Preview the project in a browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool starts a localhost server, returns a link, and avoids saving. However, it is silent on whether the project is modified, how long the server or link remains valid, and what happens if the preview fails.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and output. There is no filler, and every phrase adds useful information.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the core behavior and return value are stated clearly. Peripheral details like link lifetime or server teardown are omitted, but they are not essential for invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with both 'open' and 'editor' having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific resource ('project'), the action ('serves,' 'returns'), and the delivery mechanism ('TurboWarp link'), and distinguishes itself from save_project by noting it happens 'without saving a file first.' It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 'without saving a file first' implies use for quick previews rather than persistence, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over save_project or create_project. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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