net_url_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions returning the 'final address', implying redirect following, which is useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, error handling, timeouts, or what 'key response headers' means, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, compact Chinese sentence that immediately states purpose and return values with no redundant filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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, no output schema), the description covers the essential return values. It omits potential output format, error scenarios, and protocol restrictions, but for a basic status checker, it is reasonably complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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. The single parameter 'url' is self-explanatory from the tool name and description, but the description adds no extra semantic detail such as URL format, required scheme (http/https), or whether file URLs are supported. It meets the baseline by virtue of the parameter being the tool's core resource.

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 tool's purpose: URL status detection, specifying return values (HTTP status code, key response headers, final address). The verb '检测' (detect) and resource 'URL' make it distinct from siblings like net_fetch or net_dead_link.

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. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like net_dead_link, net_fetch, or net_meta_analyze, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the stated purpose.

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