metro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the session binding lifecycle, override semantics, clearing behavior on session close, and the 90-second timeout. It does not mention side effects or return values, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful for an agent.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. It packs binding behavior and timeout into a compact structure that is easy to scan.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 34 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers key operational behavior like binding, override, and timeout, but it omits output shape, prerequisite conditions, and any guidance for resolving devices or selecting among the many parameters.

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 only 44%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. The only parameter-related guidance is the general 'runtime inputs' override statement, which does not clarify the many selectors, timeouts, hosts, or flags in the schema.

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's purpose: preparing a React Native development server or asking connected apps to reload. It names the resource (the session-bound Metro dev server), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like react-native or open.

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 provides clear usage context: the tool uses a session-bound development server, and runtime inputs can override that binding for one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or states when not to use the tool, but the binding and override behavior are practical and specific.

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