extract_links

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior beyond 'extract anchors'; no mention of output format, whether it modifies state, or any side effects. The 'subtree' aspect is hinted but not explained.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and it omits details that would help the agent decide.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters (especially the undocumented ones like selector), or any constraints.

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 coverage is only 33%, yet the description adds no detail about parameters (tabId, selector, sameOriginOnly). The term 'anchors' is not tied to any parameter meaning. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'anchors', and it distinguishes from siblings like get_text or get_html. However, 'anchors' is slightly ambiguous (could mean named anchors or hyperlinks), and the scope ('from the page or a subtree') is vague but hints at filtering.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_html or snapshot. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios.

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