find_chapter_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares the operation read-only, scopes it to the owned page, and explains the exact selection rule (nodes with id starting 'cur', plus anchors to study/knowledge pages). It omits failure behavior when no owned page is attached and how the limit truncates results.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first line and the return semantics following. No redundant restatement of the name or padding.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the selection criteria well. However, for a browser-dependent tool with no annotations, it leaves out the precondition (an attached/owned page session) and the meaning of the one parameter, which are needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what limit counts (links, nodes, results) or what happens at the default of 60. The description must compensate for the empty schema and does not.

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 ('Read chapter/task links') plus the mechanism ('read-only DOM query') and what it returns (absolute hrefs for chapter nodes). This is clearly distinguishable from navigation tools like open_course_chapter, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'so the caller can navigate to an explicit chapter without guessing URL shapes' implies a use case (resolving chapter URLs before navigating), but it never states when to prefer this over open_course_chapter, inspect_owned_page, or goto_course_page, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an attached owned page.

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