preview_browser_item

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool does NOT load the item onto a track, clarifying no side effects. It also mentions the need to stop the preview with another tool. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the non-destructive preview behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. First sentence states purpose and constraint, second provides parameter source and complementary tool. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and teardown. It could mention the return value briefly, but output schema handles that. Overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 0% description coverage for item_uri. Description compensates by explaining that item_uri comes from specific tools (search_browser or get_browser_items_at_path), providing provenance and meaning for the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool auditions a browser item through Live's preview tab without loading it onto a track. The verb 'audition' and resource 'browser item' are specific, and it explicitly distinguishes from loading tools by saying 'WITHOUT loading it onto a track'.

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?

Description tells when to use (to audition before loading) and provides source for item_uri (search_browser or get_browser_items_at_path) and complementary tool (stop_browser_preview). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the guidance is clear.

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