get_documentation_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as error handling, handling of relative URLs, JavaScript-rendered content, rate limiting, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and lacks caveats about limitations.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. The first sentence immediately conveys the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, none required unless url), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the inputs and basic behavior. Minor gaps include lack of error scenarios or edge cases, but these are acceptable for a simple extraction 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'url' as the documentation page URL and 'filter_pattern' as an optional pattern with examples ('api', 'guide'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the pattern format (regex vs substring) is not specified. Overall, it provides useful guidance.

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 extracts all links from a documentation page, which is specific and actionable. The name and description together make it obvious this is for link discovery, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_page_structure' which handles structure, and 'extract_code_examples' which handles code. While not explicit, the differentiation is clear from context.

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 mentions it's 'useful for discovering related docs,' which implies a typical use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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