get_internal_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Credits: 0, read-only' and describes conditional output, but it omits authorization requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior for limit/offset.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the conditional logic and behavioral facts. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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-value details are appropriately omitted. The description covers conditional outputs, read-only status, and zero credits, though it still lacks pagination semantics for limit/offset and any scope note for project_id.

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% with four parameters. The description explains only the url parameter (its effect on output), leaving project_id, limit, and offset undocumented anywhere, so it does not compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (internal link graph) and precisely distinguishes behavior with and without the url parameter. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like check_links or audit_sitemap, but the conditional return description makes the tool's purpose clear.

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 explains how to use the url parameter to get different outputs (summary/orphans vs inbound links/anchors), which implies two usage modes. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as check_links, audit_sitemap, or get_backlinks.

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