start_preview

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits. It does not mention that the server will run in the background, require stopping via 'stop_preview', or any permissions or resource usage.

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 extremely concise at one sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from additional structure, such as a brief note on usage or parameters, without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema and minimal annotations, the description does not provide enough context for a complex tool with 6 parameters. It lacks information about the server's behavior, return value, or how to interact with it (e.g., stopping, accessing preview URL).

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 description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description, but it fails to explain what 'site_path' represents or the meaning of 'bind', 'port', 'build_drafts', etc.

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 action ('Start Hugo local server') and the purpose ('for preview'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'stop_preview' and other build tools like 'build_site'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'build_site' for production, 'stop_preview' to stop). It lacks context such as prerequisites or typical workflow.

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