tor_get_links

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'bounded page', which suggests that only a limited set of links is returned, but it doesn't clarify pagination behavior or whether links are deduplicated or absolute/relative. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for the added context.

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 sentence with no filler words. It gets straight to the point with a clear verb and object. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has only 2 optional parameters and an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description is extremely sparse: it doesn't explain what 'bounded page' means concretely, how limit/offset interplay, or what types of links are extracted. Given the simplistic nature, it is adequate but leaves gaps that may confuse an agent.

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. It only says 'bounded page', which loosely maps to limit and offset but doesn't explicitly state that 'limit' caps the number of links and 'offset' skips a number. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but without any description, the agent lacks clarity on exact semantics.

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 a specific verb 'Extract' with a clear resource 'links from the current page'. It also mentions 'bounded page', which hints at pagination and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like tor_read_page (reads full page) or tor_query_elements (queries arbitrary elements). This makes the purpose highly clear and distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other link-extraction or querying tools. There is no mention of alternatives like tor_query_elements or tor_extract_posts, nor any exclusions or recommended contexts. The only implied usage is from the tool name itself, which is not enough.

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