extract_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: uniqueness (deduplication) and scheme filtering (http/https). However, it does not mention output format, handling of malformed URLs, or any edge-case behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple extraction tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input. However, it omits what the return value looks like (e.g., array of strings), which is a notable gap for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has one required string parameter 'text' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds the meaning that this parameter is 'free text', which clarifies its nature beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on encoding or formatting, so the compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the tool extracts unique http(s) URLs from free text. The verb 'extract' and resource 'unique http(s) URLs' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling text tools like diff_text or regex_test.

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?

The description implies usage: when you need to pull URLs out of arbitrary text. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., regex_test) and no exclusion criteria. The context 'free text' hints at the input type but does not elaborate.

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