Open ADT Dashboard in Browser

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the URL is expiring and loopback-only, which tells the agent about lifetime and reachability limits it could not infer from the schema.

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, zero filler, with the output (the URL) front-loaded before the usage condition. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are unnecessary, and the description covers what is produced and when to use it. It omits the actual expiration window and whether the URL is single-use, which would help an agent decide how quickly to hand it to a user, but the core is complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the standard baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (an expiring, loopback-only URL for the full interactive ADT dashboard), which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not name the sibling adt-dashboard tool explicitly, so the contrast with the embedded variant is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when the MCP client cannot render MCP Apps or constrains the app inside a frame. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when that condition is not met, so it is strong context without full when/when-not routing.

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