url_parse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dual functionality but doesn't specify error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least clarifies the core operations.

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 primary function (parsing) and adds the secondary function (building) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (dual functionality, nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core operations but doesn't address error cases, output format, or detailed usage scenarios. With no annotations and no output schema, more contextual information would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (url and build_params). The description adds value by listing specific components (e.g., protocol, host, port) that align with build_params properties, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 dual functionality: parsing URLs into components and building URLs from parts. It specifies the exact components extracted (protocol, host, port, path, query parameters, hash) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which perform different operations like API health checks, header analysis, HTTP requests, and JWT decoding.

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 usage through the phrase 'use this OR build_params, not both' (which appears in the schema, not the description), but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on when to choose parsing vs. building. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly stated.

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