Preview the deck

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

The description says the tool starts or reuses a dev server and that `stop: true` shuts it down, which is state-changing behavior. This conflicts with the annotation `readOnlyHint: true`, so the behavioral disclosure contradicts the structured annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, the returned URLs, the live-reload behavior, and the stop option in two efficient sentences.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key runtime behavior and return concept well. The main remaining issue is the annotation conflict rather than missing operational detail.

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 50%: `dir` is well described in the schema, while `stop` has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that `stop: true` shuts down the server, but it adds nothing about `dir` beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: starting or reusing the deck's dev server with live reload and returning preview URLs. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as deck_build, deck_export, or slide_render.

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 implies when to use it by saying it returns URLs for a person to open and that slide edits appear live. It also explains `stop: true`, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or sibling alternatives like production build/export.

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