html_html_links

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output format (list of {text, href} dicts) which aids transparency, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like handling malformed HTML or empty results. The operation is simple, so this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful hint about base_url. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (so return format is defined elsewhere), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, the key optional parameter, and the return type. It lacks details on error handling, but for a simple extraction tool this is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the base_url parameter's purpose (resolving relative links), adding meaning beyond the schema. The html parameter is left implicit but obvious from context. This adds value over the raw 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 the tool extracts all hyperlinks from HTML, using a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('hyperlinks from HTML'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like html_html_headings, html_html_meta, etc., which extract other elements.

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 provides guidance on when to use base_url to resolve relative links, giving context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear enough.

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