bwiki_get_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core behavior (get current page URL) which is adequate for a simple read operation, but it does not mention any side effects, return format, or potential error conditions. This is acceptable for a trivial getter but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundant words. It earns its place and is maximally concise.

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 simplicity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it could mention the return value type (e.g., full URL string) to be fully self-contained, but that's a minor omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the empty schema fully describes this. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is consistent with this.

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 ('获取' = get) and the specific resource ('当前页面URL' = current page URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_content, get_categories, and get_file_info by its focus on the URL. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies use for retrieving the current page URL, it does not explicitly state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool comparisons, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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