tool_url_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it parses a URL into components, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or how errors are handled. This lack of detail limits transparency.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action and directly states the resource and output. There is no unnecessary wording or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description lists examples of components but does not specify the complete set of returned fields or the output schema. Although an output schema is indicated as existing, it is not provided here, so the description alone leaves some ambiguity about the exact return structure. It is sufficiently complete for a simple utility, but not fully detailed.

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 only provides the parameter name and type (string), with no description. The tool description implies that the parameter is the URL to parse, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on expected format (e.g., full URL, relative, encoded) or constraints, so the compensation is minimal.

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's function with a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a URL'), and enumerates example components (scheme, host, path, params). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which handle JSON, encoding, hashing, etc., so there is no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would trigger its use. Since none of the sibling tools parse URLs, the need is implicit, but no explicit usage context is given.

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