Servir o site localmente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no-cache behavior, video support, session-bound lifetime, and the return shape (URL plus test shortcuts). It omits failure modes such as what happens if the port is already occupied or if a server is already running.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by lifetime and return details; each sentence carries information. The parenthetical shortcut list is useful but makes the paragraph slightly heavy.

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 exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (URL + test URLs). With no annotations, behavior is covered adequately for a server-start tool; the residual gap is the undocumented 'porta' parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It partially defines 'projeto' (project folder or transformed copy) but says nothing about the 'porta' parameter — the mention of the 'project's own port' is about the default, not about how the override argument behaves.

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 concrete verb+resource: it starts a local server for the project folder (or the transformed copy), with specific traits (project port, no cache, video support). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling parar_site, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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?

Gives real lifecycle context — the server lives only while the MCP is open, and abrir-site.bat/.command is the alternative for running it outside. However, it never says when to reach for this vs. the verification siblings (verificar_site, capturar_capitulo) that presumably depend on a running server.

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