list_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions pagination, implying a list operation that might return partial results, but doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, what happens on invalid page numbers, or the format/scope of returned URLs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like the resource type. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'urls' refers to, the pagination mechanism, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to help an agent use the tool correctly, but it leaves too many gaps.

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%, with the parameter 'page' documented in the schema as a string with an empty example. The description adds that this is for pagination ('with page number'), which provides some context beyond the schema, but doesn't explain the pagination system (e.g., starting page, format, what 'page' represents). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value.

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 the action ('Get list') and resource ('all urls'), but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of URLs these are (e.g., from a database, web pages, API endpoints) or how 'all urls' relates to pagination. Compared to siblings 'get_random' and 'search', it doesn't clarify when this tool is preferred over 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_random' or 'search'. The description mentions pagination ('with page number'), but doesn't explain whether this is for browsing all URLs systematically versus using search for filtering or get_random for sampling. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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