superdesign_live_gallery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'real-time updates and file watching' as features, it doesn't describe what the server does (e.g., serves files, provides a web interface), how it handles errors, whether it runs in the background, or what happens when it starts (e.g., opens a browser). For a server-starting tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start a live gallery server') and adds key features. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from features for better readability.

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?

Given the tool starts a server (a complex operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the server outputs (e.g., a URL, status messages), how to interact with it, or what 'real-time updates' entail. For a tool of this nature, more context on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('workspace_path' and 'port'), including defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 with a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('live gallery server'), and mentions key features ('real-time updates and file watching'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'superdesign_gallery' by specifying it's a 'live' server. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in terms of scope or functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'superdesign_gallery' (which might be a static gallery) or 'superdesign_iterate' (which might involve iterative processes). There's no information about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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