tenki_expose_port

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the description need not restate those. It adds the concrete consequence of a 'public preview URL,' which is useful context, but it does not disclose lifecycle details such as whether the exposed port persists, how cleanup happens, or what happens if the server is not reachable.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the operation and outcome, and the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, the result ('public preview URL'), and the motivating scenario ('web server it wants to show'). Without an output schema, return-format detail is not specified, but the description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool accomplishes.

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 100%: port, slug, and session_id all have descriptive schema text. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Expose a port from a sandbox') and a concrete outcome ('get a public preview URL'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tenki_unexpose_port and tenki_create_preview_url by tying the action to a sandbox port.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful when an agent starts a web server it wants to show.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended scenario is readily inferable.

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