Get dashboard URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what the dashboard displays (logs, network, exceptions, frames, memory), but says nothing beyond that — no note on URL lifetime, whether it requires a running session, or what to do if it's unavailable.

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 tight sentences with the return value front-loaded and the parenthetical describing the dashboard placed immediately after the noun. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, read-only URL getter with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. Minor omissions (URL validity window, any prerequisite session state) keep it from a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description neither needs to nor does add parameter meaning.

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+resource ("Return the URL of the live Realtime Runtime Dashboard") and characterizes the resource as a browser UI streaming logs, network, exceptions, frames & memory, which implicitly differentiates it from the individual get_logs/get_network/get_memory siblings. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to those alternatives.

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?

"Open it in a browser to watch the app alongside the AI" gives a clear intended action, so usage is implied rather than absent. However, it never states when to prefer this aggregate view over the granular siblings, nor any when-not condition.

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