text_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. It fails to disclose what constitutes a URL, how malformed text is handled, or any expected behavior. The minimal description does not sufficiently inform the agent of operational nuances.

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 concise with one sentence and front-loaded action. However, it is under-specific for a tool with no additional documentation, making it insufficiently informative.

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 tool is simple, but without output schema or additional details, the description should explain return values (e.g., returns list of strings). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format. Edge cases are not addressed.

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%, requiring the description to add meaning. However, the description adds no detail about the 'text' parameter beyond its name in the schema. It does not specify expected format, encoding, or constraints.

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 action (extract) and resource (all URLs from a text). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like text_extract_emails and text_extract_phone_numbers which operate on different patterns.

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?

While the purpose implies usage for URL extraction, no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or of related tools like text_extract_emails.

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