tenki_open_preview

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the live-verified URL failure for ports other than 7681 and clarifying that the viewerToken still resolves via tenki_resolve_preview_token. Also notes the require allow_inbound prerequisite. This adds significant behavioral context not in 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the warning is placed immediately after, making it easy to scan. Every sentence provides necessary 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 tool with a specific failure mode and token behavior, the description covers the essential caveats, the prerequisite, and the token resolution. Given the schema documents parameters and no output schema is present, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, except for the allow_inbound prerequisite which is not a parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (open a viewer-token-gated preview) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (tenki_expose_port, tenki_create_preview_url) by explaining it is for AUTHENTICATED-mode previews. The verb 'open' and resource 'preview' are clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs when NOT to use this tool and provides alternatives: 'USE tenki_expose_port OR tenki_create_preview_url INSTEAD for an ordinary web server.' Also gives a concrete reason (non-7681 ports return a fallback host that 404s), so an agent can decide correctly.

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