Link Extractor for AI Agents

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, yet the description still adds real value: terminal-state no-op behavior, the fact that updated run details are returned, and a required x402 payment signature in _meta. The payment/auth prerequisite is exactly the kind of operational context the schema cannot convey.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core action and state constraint come first, followed by no-op conditions, usage, and payment prerequisites. The labeled USAGE/USAGE EXAMPLES blocks with 'user_input:' lines are slightly redundant padding, costing it the top mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the description's state preconditions and the x402 payment requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 runId and gracefully are already fully documented, including the 30-second graceful timeout. The description's example ('Gracefully abort run y2h7sK3Wc') implies the flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Abort) applied to a specific resource (Actor run) and narrows the scope to runs 'currently starting or running'. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like get-actor-run and get-dataset-items.

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?

Explicitly states when to reach for it ('stop a run that is taking too long or misconfigured') and when it is a no-op (runs already SUCCEEDED, FAILED, ABORTING, ABORTED, or TIMED-OUT). The when-not condition is unusually precise and prevents wasted calls.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a hard prerequisite the structured fields cannot express: an x402 payment signature must be supplied in _meta, or the call fails. It also explains the blocking semantics of waitSecs and what summary/nextStep contain, which is real behavioral context on top of readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by return contents, usage, and examples under clear labels. It is somewhat longer than necessary — the two user_input examples largely restate the usage bullets — but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return shapes need no explanation), the description still clarifies what summary and nextStep mean, covers the blocking behavior, and surfaces the payment requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including waitSecs' range, default, and terminal-state list. The description restates waitSecs (0-45, default 30, blocks until terminal) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Actor run') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (status, storages, stats, summary, nextStep). This is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling abort-actor-run and from the storage readers get-dataset-items / get-key-value-store-record.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use to check the status of a run started by any Actor-running tool') and conditional behavior for waitSecs > 0. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to an alternative tool for cancelling/waiting differently, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important non-annotation context: the tool requires an x402 payment signature in request metadata, plus default limit and clean=true behavior. It does not discuss error modes or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return distinction, then follows with usage and examples. It is generally efficient, though some statements such as default limit and clean behavior duplicate the schema, and the separate usage/examples sections add slight redundancy.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed for correct invocation. It covers purpose, return semantics, usage context, default behavior, and the critical x402 payment requirement.

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 already documents all 8 parameters, including default limit, clean behavior, fields/omit/flatten semantics, and datasetId resolution. The description reinforces a few of these and gives example field selections, but adds little parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get items (rows) from a dataset') and clarifies exactly what is returned versus what is not (metadata, counts, schema). It also gives the direct-call condition when the user provides a datasetId and asks for results, so an agent can distinguish this from adjacent dataset operations.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('when you need to read data from a dataset') and provides concrete user-input examples. It also excludes metadata/count/schema use cases, but it does not name alternative tools for those adjacent needs, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the exact key name is mandatory, that the response preserves the original Content-Encoding with most clients decompressing automatically, and — critically — that the call requires an x402 payment signature in _meta["x402/payment"] and client-side protocol support. These are material behavioral facts no annotation or schema field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then sectionalized USAGE, examples, and the payment prerequisite. Every line carries information, though the header scaffolding and duplicated phrasing between the purpose line and USAGE line cost a bit of tightness.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values and correctly doesn't. It covers the one thing an agent would otherwise trip on — the x402 payment handshake — and the encoding caveat, leaving nothing essential unstated for a two-parameter read.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds one genuinely extra constraint — the key must be an exact name, implying no prefix or wildcard matching — which slightly raises it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the value stored under a specific key in a key-value store') and immediately bounds the scope with 'a single record, not a listing of all keys.' The read-vs-list distinction lets an agent separate it from any collection-listing tool without opening the schema.

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?

An explicit USAGE line plus two concrete examples ('Get record INPUT from store abc123', 'data.json from store username~my-store') show exactly when the tool applies. There is no named negative case or alternative tool to route away to, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, but say nothing about cost or authorization. The description adds material context the annotations cannot: an x402 payment signature must be supplied in _meta["x402/payment"], the client must support the protocol, and pricing is $0.0005 per successful page. It does not explain what happens on payment failure or the asynchronous run/cap behavior, which is left to the schema.

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 opening sentence largely restates the title and tool name before the useful actor description appears. The payment block is essential and well-placed, but the front-loading is weak: the actual capability is buried in the second line rather than stated first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The payment and pricing model are disclosed, which is the main hidden requirement. Remaining gap is the run lifecycle (waitSecs capping, polling with get-actor-run) being schema-only rather than surfaced in the description.

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% across all 8 parameters, including URLs, concurrency, deduplicate, timeouts and waitSecs, so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds nothing parameter-specific (e.g., no note that cost scales with the number of URLs fetched). Baseline 3 applies when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource via the embedded actor summary: 'Extract links, anchors, rel flags and link class' from pages. The wrapper sentence ('calls the Actor ... and retrieves its output results') is boilerplate, but the actor line makes the function unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings (get-dataset-items, get-actor-run), though it is the only run-initiating tool in the set.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling retrieval tools, nor any stated preconditions beyond the payment requirement. The follow-up path (poll via get-actor-run when waitSecs caps out) exists only in the schema, not in the description. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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