get_dashboard_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Get the URL', but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., plain URL string vs. JSON). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains what the dashboard shows and how to use the URL. However, it does not specify the exact format of the returned URL (e.g., whether it's a raw string or wrapped in JSON), which could be helpful for an agent.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the scoring rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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: 'Get the URL for the real-time activity monitoring dashboard.' It specifies the resource (URL) and the action (get), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which return data summaries or perform actions rather than providing a 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?

The description advises to 'Open in a browser to see live Claude Code activity, tool usage charts, and session timelines', which clearly indicates when to use this tool (when a visual dashboard URL is needed). While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, the context is clear and sufficient for this simple tool.

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