open_explorer

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

No annotations provided, so description carries responsibility. It mentions starting a background HTTP server on 127.0.0.1 default port 3002, indexing the repo, and returning URL. However, it does not clarify if the server persists after tool invocation or if there are side effects like network access, which would be relevant for safety.

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, each earning its place: first states purpose and output, second gives usage trigger, third adds behavioral and parameter details. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description covers expected return (URL). For a tool with two optional params and clear behavior (start server, index, return URL), the description is fairly complete. Could mention non-destructive nature, but not essential.

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 has 100% coverage with good descriptions. The description adds value by specifying default port 3002 and mentioning 'auto-mentions the next port if taken', which gives practical detail beyond the schema's 'Port to serve on'.

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 clearly states the tool starts a 3D web explorer and chatbot for a repo, returning a URL. It explicitly tells when to use: when user wants to see/visualize the code graph, open UI, or explore visually. This differentiates it from sibling tools like index_repo or get_graph which are more about data retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the user asks to SEE/visualize the code graph, open the UI, or explore visually.' This is clear guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use, which is acceptable for a simple tool.

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