utility_url_parser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It describes the output components but does not disclose behavior for invalid URLs (e.g., errors, null, or partial parsing). This omission is significant for a utility function where error handling is critical.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of components. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. No wasted text.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what components are returned. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., relative URLs, encoding) and error behavior. Still, it covers the primary use case sufficiently.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'url' parameter described as 'The URL string to parse.' The description adds context about the output components but does not provide additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states. Hence, it meets the baseline of 3.

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: parsing a URL string into its component parts, and it lists the specific components (protocol, hostname, port, pathname, search params, hash). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily data transformation, developer, and other utilities.

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 when you need to decompose a URL into its components, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not, nor does it mention alternatives. Given the sibling list, there is no other URL parser, so the context is adequate but lacks explicit usage recommendations.

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