Get Links

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it clarifies that hrefs are 'resolved' and explains why duplicates occur ('navigation and footers produce in bulk'), helping the agent understand output characteristics.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the optional deduplication behavior explained immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and no wording is wasted.

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 description, combined with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, covers the essential behavior: what is listed, what link fields are returned, and how deduplication works. It could be slightly stronger by naming sibling tools like query_elements as alternatives, but no critical information is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents limit, query, tab_id, and unique. The description repeats the unique parameter's purpose with extra context about duplicate sources, but does not add substantial semantic value beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List links on the page with their text and resolved href.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_page_content or query_elements, which extract general content or elements rather than link-specific data.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for extracting links with text and href values, and adds conditional guidance for the unique flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specialized purpose makes intended usage apparent.

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