get_url

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by specifying the IE-only limitation and the automatic IE mode activation. It does not contradict annotations. A slight deduction for not stating what happens if called when not on an IE window (e.g., error or empty result), but overall good 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 two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and essential supporting context in the second. No superfluous words, effectively front-loaded.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when it works, and how to prepare the active window. It references relevant sibling tools for setup, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema provides complete coverage. The description appropriately adds no parameter details. Baseline 4 is warranted as the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 gets the current page URL, using the verb 'get' and the resource 'current page URL'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_window_title' or 'set_url' by specifying the unique constraint of IE window support.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the active window is an IE window') and provides guidance on how to enable that condition via sibling tools 'switch_to_window' / 'switch_to_window_by_title'. This effectively tells the agent when to and when not to use this tool.

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