build_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds URLs but doesn't describe output format, error handling, or constraints (e.g., URL encoding, validation). For a tool with no annotations and potential complexity in URL construction, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Construir URL a partir de componentes') that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it's adequate but has clear gaps, scoring at the minimum viable level.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'scheme' as 'Esquema de la URL', 'host' as 'Hostname o dominio'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Construir URL a partir de componentes' clearly states the tool's purpose as building URLs from components, using a specific verb ('construir') and resource ('URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'parse_url' (which decomposes URLs) and 'validate_url' (which validates URLs), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'parse_url' (for reverse operation) or 'validate_url' (for validation), nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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