get_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses little: it doesn't mention that a browser session must be open, how links are ordered or truncated, pagination, or any rate/permission constraints. It only restates the output shape, which the output schema already covers.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is tight, though arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the read-only nature of link extraction is intuitive. However, the max_links parameter is unexplained and no session prerequisites are given, leaving meaningful gaps for a browser-context tool.

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 max_links (default 50) is never mentioned in the description. The 'text + href' note describes output fields, not the parameter, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented truncation behavior.

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 (extract), resource (links), and scope (current page), plus the returned shape (text + href). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_page_text and get_page_html that retrieve other page content, though it doesn't name them 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_page_html, get_page_text, or evaluate_js for link extraction, and no stated prerequisites or context about the browser session it operates on.

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