Get a link to watch the desktop

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious and important trait: the URL is a bearer credential whose holder keeps access until restart or workspace move, at which point new credentials are issued. This lifecycle/security disclosure is exactly the value a description should add.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the default mode, then the security caveat. It is efficient, though the opening noun phrase overlaps somewhat with the title.

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 no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the default mode, and the credential lifetime. It omits any mention of the control option or whether links expire on a timer, which would round it out.

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 100% and the control parameter is already documented in depth (root-equivalence, input dropping). The description only echoes the watch-only default and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: a URL that opens this computer's live desktop in a browser. It clearly conveys what the tool returns, and the watch-only default is stated. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from URL-producing siblings like create_public_url or get_computer_ssh.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'Watch-only by default' hints that full control is available, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as screenshot or create_public_url. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given; the schema carries the only routing information.

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