browser_link

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the extra burden and does add meaningful traits: the link is non-persistent ('works on this machine only, until the MCP server restarts') and the result must be presented as a clickable link. It does not cover failure modes or whether the referenced app must already be open/authenticated.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by a single usage sentence and an Args block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description correctly tells the agent how to use the returned value. Combined with the enumerated tool values and argument examples, it is nearly complete for a 2-parameter tool; only edge behavior (invalid tool, persistence failure) is unaddressed.

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, and it does: it enumerates the accepted app names for 'tool' (pipeline_monitor, query_grid, schema_explorer, cluster_monitor, sql_editor) and gives concrete example payloads for 'arguments'. It stops short of full compensation because it doesn't state the full argument contract for each target app or what happens with an unknown tool name.

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 and outcome ('Get a link that opens one of the interactive apps full-window in the user's web browser'), which is clear enough to separate it from direct query/editor tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sibling 'app_page', so sibling differentiation 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 concrete trigger: 'Use this when the user wants an app bigger than the chat allows or in their browser', plus a follow-up instruction to hand the returned URL to the user as a clickable link. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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