breadcrumb-extractor

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states 'Pure URL parsing — zero external calls,' clarifying no side effects. It also mentions identifying numeric vs named path segments, but lacks detail on error handling or output format structure.

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 concise, a single paragraph of two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. It is well-structured and easy to read, though could be slightly more compact.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (domain, path segments, labels, query parameters, formatted string) and additional behavior (identifying numeric vs named). It covers all necessary aspects for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and description adds context by explaining the URL parameter's purpose and mentioning the default separator. It provides meaningful interpretation beyond the schema.

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 it extracts structured breadcrumb navigation from a URL and specifies the return components (domain, path segments, labels, query parameters, formatted string). It also mentions identifying numeric IDs vs named segments, making it distinct from any sibling tools.

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 mentions it is useful for processing sitemaps, navigation menus, or understanding page hierarchy, providing context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given no similar siblings, this is adequate.

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