suggest_internal_links

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

The description details the algorithm, exclusion logic (existing links and self-links), and scope (per page or all pages). It also explains the anchor_hint derivation. Given no annotations, this provides good behavioral context, though it omits authentication or rate limits.

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 brief but informative, with the main purpose stated first followed by necessary details. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the core functionality, algorithm, and scope, but lacks parameter descriptions and usage guidelines. With a complex tool having 6 parameters, more detail would be beneficial, but the existence of an output schema partially compensates for return value explanation.

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 0%, but the description only hints at folder and page parameters. The other four parameters (pattern, top_k, limit, site_host) are not described at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema names and types.

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's purpose: to suggest top-K internal links to add to each page in a folder. It specifies the algorithm (TF-IDF cosine similarity) and differentiates from sibling tools like internal_link_graph (which likely shows existing links) by focusing on suggestions for addition.

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 implies usage for adding internal links but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_page or internal_link_graph. No exclusions or scenarios 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.