List links from a page (sitemap/RSS-first)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses network behavior: it tries sitemap.xml, RSS/Atom feeds, then page links; it limits child sitemaps to 3; it reports source, count, and truncation in the response; and it explicitly does not return page content. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: the core purpose, the fallback chain, the output format, the filter behavior, the usage guidance, and the limitations. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the primary function, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the output format ('- <title> — <url>'), edge cases (truncated at 200, empty filter results), and restrictions (no page content, max 3 child sitemaps). This makes the tool's behavior predictable and complete for an AI 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?

Both parameters are fully described. `url` is defined as 'Starting URL' with a URI format. `filter` is detailed as 'Substring match against URL/link text, or a glob using *', which precisely explains its matching behavior. The schema description coverage is 100% and the descriptions add meaningful 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Enumerate URLs under a site or page without fetching each one.' It differentiates from siblings by targeting link discovery, with explicit guidance 'Use it to find the right page before fetch', which aligns with the presence of `fetch` as a sibling.

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 explains when to use it (before fetching) and when not to (it does not return page content), plus details the fallback chain (sitemap, RSS/Atom, page links). This is sufficient guidance relative to the sibling tools `screenshot` and `fetch`.

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