build_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the inputs but not the output (a URL string), nor behavior for edge cases such as trailing slashes, a base_url that already contains a query string, or encoding rules for duplicate keys. For a pure transformation tool this is a notable 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?

Front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block; every line is relevant. Slightly redundant with the schema, but efficient overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least confirm the return value (the composed URL string) and note encoding/edge-case behavior. As written it is adequate for happy-path invocation but incomplete for a transformation tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: base_url is constrained to http/https, path is described as the segment to append (with a default of empty), and query is a dict to encode and attach. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover encoding or key-collision semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Construct') and resource ('a URL') and enumerates the three inputs, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as parse_url or validate_url, which an agent might reasonably consider.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus parse_url, validate_url, or fetch_url, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer purpose from the name alone.

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