browser_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'best-effort selector refs,' hinting at limitations, but does not disclose that it operates on the current tab, possible incompleteness due to dynamic content, or performance characteristics. Adequate but could be richer.

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 sentences, no redundant information. Every word earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage hint.

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?

Without output schema, the description mentions return fields (text, href, selector refs) adequately. However, it does not clarify that the tool requires an active tab (tabId usage) or error handling. The phrase 'best-effort selector refs' could be elaborated. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete regarding parameters and edge cases.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The tabId parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose. The query and limit parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning 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 clearly states the tool returns 'compact visible links from the page with text, href, and best-effort selector refs.' The verb 'Return' combined with the specific resource (compact visible links) precisely defines the action, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_snapshot (full page snapshot) and browser_click (action).

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 includes 'Useful for navigation choices without a full snapshot,' which gives context on when to use it instead of a full snapshot tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit comparison.

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