design_live_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it says the tool reads files only, makes no bridge call, may ensure the local dashboard is running, and can open a browser. It also discloses dashboard states such as running, started, disabled, and failed, plus the version-zero behavior before a board is published.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the argument explanation is clear. However, the middle paragraph spends substantial space on visual details like glowing items and fading copper, which are informative but not essential for selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

The definition is complete for a read-only viewing tool: it explains the URL result, dashboard running states, version semantics, and the reason field when the dashboard is unavailable. Output schema exists, and the description still adds useful return-value 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is explicitly explained: open_browser also opens the URL in the default browser. That is sufficient added meaning for a one-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Open the live layout view and return its URL." It is easy to distinguish from a generic snapshot tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with its closest sibling, design_live_snapshot.

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 gives clear implied usage: give the URL to the user so they can watch while you work. However, it does not say when not to use it or when to prefer design_live_snapshot, design_live_note, or other viewing siblings.

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