extract_links

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

The description adds the key behavioral trait 'absolutize,' indicating that relative URLs are converted to absolute ones, which is not evident from the schema. Since there are no annotations, this is valuable context. However, it omits other behaviors such as how null html is handled, what happens on limit truncation, or side effects (though 'extract' implies read-only).

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, lacking necessary details that should be present. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, zero annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what 'matching elements' means, how absolutization works or depends on source_url, or what the output looks like. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of contextual guidance.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the 9 parameters. The agent is left with only parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for a tool with optional parameters like mode, query, and source_url that significantly affect 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?

The description uses specific verbs 'extract' and 'absolutize' with a clear resource: 'link-like attributes from matching elements.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_selector (which likely returns elements) and extract_structured_data_cdp (structured extraction). However, 'link-like' is somewhat vague and does not enumerate specific attributes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts that favor this tool. The description only states what the tool does, not when to apply it.

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