parse_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. It only states 'shortcut' and 'same return shape as `parse`' without disclosing any behavioral details such as validation, error handling, or how it processes malformed URLs. This is completely insufficient for an AI agent to predict the tool's side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately references the return shape. Both sentences earn their place, but the brevity borders on under-specification, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return type is defined, but the description lacks crucial details: it does not explain the purpose of the `backend` parameter, does not elaborate on what 'parsing' entails, and does not clarify the relationship to `parse` beyond the shared return shape. The tool is simple, but the description 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?

The schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds a constraint that the `url` parameter should be an HTTP(S) URL, which is useful. However, it entirely fails to explain the `backend` parameter, leaving the agent without a full understanding of the input parameters.

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 operation (parsing) and resource (HTTP(S) URL). It references the sibling `parse` to indicate a variant, but does not explicitly explain the difference beyond calling it a 'shortcut'. This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic tools, though the distinction from `parse` is implicit.

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 it is for URL inputs but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over `parse` or other siblings. It only says 'Same return shape as `parse`', which provides minimal context but does not offer explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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