internal_link_graph

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

The description explains the tool's behavior well, including return values and special handling of site_host and URL slug matching. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly declare read-only nature or potential side effects, though implied.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, the description is complete: it explains input parameters thoroughly and still describes return values for clarity. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: folder (required), pattern (default *.html), limit (default 1000), and site_host (for absolute URL resolution). Adds significant meaning beyond bare 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 audits a folder of HTML pages as a directed internal-link graph and lists specific outputs (counts, orphans, dead-ends, top hubs, dangling hrefs), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (auditing folder of HTML pages for link graph) and explains optional parameters like site_host, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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