extract_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses JS rendering support but omits details like side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'normalized' means. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action. While concise, it sacrifices useful detail. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without significant bloat.

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?

Despite having an output schema (implied) and several parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the output format, the normalization process, or how parameters affect behavior. The tool's complexity is higher than the description suggests.

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% (only titles provided). The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, defaults, or constraints. For a tool with 5 parameters and low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Description clearly states the tool extracts normalized crawlable links from static or JS-rendered pages. It specifies the action (extract) and resource (links), and hints at an ability to handle JS rendering. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like crawl_url or parse_url, which may also extract links.

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 (e.g., crawl_url for full crawling, parse_url for URL parsing). The description lacks any when-not-to-use or prerequisite information, leaving the agent without decision context.

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