alethia_serve_demo

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the server running on a random available port on 127.0.0.1 and clarifies the return value (base URL and list of demo pages). No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core action, then provide usage context, technical detail, and return information. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 zero-parameter, simple tool, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, when to use, how it behaves (random port, loopback), and what it returns, even without an output schema. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter explanations and instead adds value by describing the server's operational details and return value.

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: 'Start a local HTTP server for the built-in Alethia demo pages and return the base URL.' It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('local HTTP server'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its role in serving demo pages and its relationship to alethia_tell.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to serve demo pages on localhost so they appear in preview panels' and 'Call this before alethia_tell to get a localhost URL instead of a file:// path.' This provides clear context and an explicit sequencing instruction relative to a sibling tool.

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