browser_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the main behavior: it auditions by playing through FL's output and depends on fl-listen/metering to be heard. It doesn't state what happens if no node is focused or whether the preview is non-destructive, but the word 'preview' and 'audition' imply a playback action.

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?

One sentence with an em-dash and a parenthetical action; every clause earns its place. The main action is front-loaded before the auxiliary 'how to hear it' instruction.

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 parameterless preview action with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is played, where it is played, and what to combine for audio output. It could add a prerequisite that a browser node must already be focused (and how to set one), but sibling tools make this inferable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema cannot add meaning; the description compensates by naming the implicit context 'focused browser node' and the output path through FL's output. This is the expected baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Audition the focused browser node' and immediately clarifies the action: 'plays the sample/preset preview through FL's output.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling browser tools like browser_select, browser_navigate, and browser_focused.

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?

It gives clear procedural context by telling the agent to 'combine with fl-listen/metering to hear it,' which explains how to use the result. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the zero-parameter action is unique enough that the implied usage is sufficient.

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