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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('extraer URLs') but doesn't explain how URLs are extracted (e.g., regex patterns, handling of malformed URLs), what happens with duplicates, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of URL extraction (which can involve edge cases like multiple URLs, invalid formats, or no URLs found), the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of URLs, error messages) or behavioral details. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'text' parameter clearly documented as 'Texto del que extraer URLs'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on text length. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Extraer URLs de un texto' clearly states the tool's purpose: extracting URLs from text. It uses a specific verb ('extraer') and resource ('URLs'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'extract_domain' or 'parse_url', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'extract_domain' for domain extraction or 'parse_url' for URL parsing, nor does it specify contexts where this tool is preferred. Without such guidance, users might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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