Open Storybook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by specifying the booted simulator requirement, the default port, and the SIM_STORYBOOK_URL environment override. It stops short of describing failure modes or return behavior, but that is acceptable for a zero-parameter open 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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. Every clause adds useful information: target, environment, mechanism, port, and environment variable override.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures target, precondition, port, and configuration override, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could mention what happens on success or if Metro is not running, but that is not essential for a simple open action.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema and description leave nothing ambiguous about arguments. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool requires no inputs.

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 action ('Open'), target resource ('Storybook'), and environment ('booted simulator'), while adding the concrete mechanism of a Metro server on port 8082. This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like open_app or open_url.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need Storybook on a booted simulator via Metro. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as open_app, open_url, or launch_app, leaving when-not-to-use guidance to inference.

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