preview_election_calendar

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that this is a local HTTP preview, that only the calendar and its supporting data scripts are exposed, and that the address can be retrieved again after restart while files remain offline-openable. This adds meaningful operational and security context, though lifecycle details such as stopping the server are absent.

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 compact and front-loads the main action. Both sentences add useful information, though the phrasing is dense.

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 tool that starts/restores a server, the description covers persistence and exposure scope but does not explain what the call returns, such as the preview URL, nor how to stop or manage the preview. With no output schema, these gaps matter.

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 required parameter artifact_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, source, or how it identifies the calendar. The phrase '该日历' only weakly implies the parameter's role.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: restore a local HTTP preview of a generated calendar. It also states the exposure scope, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling render_election_calendar.

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?

It implies use after a calendar has already been generated and for re-obtaining the address after an MCP restart. It gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternative routing relative to render_election_calendar.

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