url_encode

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 discloses meaningful behavior: strict RFC 3986 in component mode, form-urlencoding, and path mode keeping slashes intact. This adds detail beyond the schema's enum values, though it does not discuss edge cases like idempotency or double-encoding.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and compacts the three modes into an efficient list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, all parameter meanings, and mode-specific behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the 'mode' parameter, including meanings and default. The 'text' parameter is implied as 'a string', which is trivial. The default for mode is also mentioned, adding semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Percent-encode') and resource ('a string for URL use'), which clearly defines the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like base64_encode and url_decode by focusing on URL encoding and enumerating three modes.

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 when to use the tool (for URL encoding) and explains mode-specific contexts, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Sibling tools exist, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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