get_dashboard_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the URL is local and that the target is a human-viewable live page, but says nothing about prerequisites (does the dashboard server need to be running?), URL stability, or whether the page is shareable outside the machine. Modest added value for a side-effect-free getter.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core identity of the return value leads, and the usage instruction follows immediately, so both sentences earn their 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 getter with no output schema, the description should convey the return shape, and 'the local URL' does so implicitly. It omits any note about whether the dashboard must be running or whether the URL is ephemeral, which is a small residual gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds that the returned value is a local URL rather than an identifier or status object.

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 names a specific resource (the live activity dashboard URL) and immediately clarifies what that artifact is: 'a page a person can open to watch what the agent is doing right now.' No sibling tool overlaps with this role, so the agent can place it precisely.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Give them this when they ask to see progress.' That is a clear use condition. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. get_activity_summary) and states no when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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