start_live

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dashboard URL and run selection, but not whether the server blocks, runs in the background, persists after the call, requires an available port, or how to stop it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The URL and run-selection behavior are both communicated compactly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema this covers the basic purpose, but it omits important operational behavior for launching a live server. An agent knows what it does and the main parameter semantics, but not the full invocation context.

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?

The single optional "run" parameter is given meaning: omit it for the newest run, or provide it for a specific run. However, the description does not specify run identifier format or examples, and schema coverage is 0%.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Serve the live dashboard" with an explicit URL and optional run targeting. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as start_backend or list_runs.

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 implies usage by saying it serves the newest run or a given run, which helps an agent decide whether to pass the optional parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as whether a backend must already be running.

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