extract_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it extracts URLs but does not specify the format (e.g., full URLs, relative, protocol-relative), whether it deduplicates, or limits such as not extracting URLs from certain contexts. This is minimal disclosure.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though some might argue it is too brief. Still, it meets conciseness well.

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 (one parameter, has output schema), the description adequately covers the core functionality. The presence of an output schema informs the agent about return values, so the description does not need to elaborate further. It is complete for the task.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter 'text' described as 'Text to search for URLs'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Extract all URLs from text' uses a specific verb and resource clearly indicating the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling tools like extract_emails, parse_url_components, and check_url_status that deal with URLs differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as parse_url_components (for parsing URL components) or check_url_status (for validating URL status) are not mentioned. The description lacks exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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