open_remote_desktop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the link is short-lived and personal, and should only be given to the user. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the security implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial security context without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait (short-lived link). It implies the simulation must be running and does not require prerequisites or error handling. The only minor gap is lack of explicit parameter guidance, but that is addressed in parameter_semantics. Overall, it is complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a simulation_id by saying 'of a running simulation', but does not explicitly explain the parameter, its format, or constraints. For a single integer parameter, the implication is weak compensation; an agent would need to infer the ID's meaning from the tool name and description.

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 'Get' and the resource 'browser remote-desktop (VNC) link of a running simulation'. It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_download_link or get_upload_link, which serve different purposes. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that the link is short-lived and personal, which is a handling instruction rather than usage context. An agent would have to infer that this is for viewing a running simulation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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