get_links

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scope and output shape ('all links' with 'URL and text'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it waits for page load, how relative URLs are handled, or whether hidden/duplicate links are included.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and expected output, and it is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional, self-documented parameter, the description is mostly complete. The stated output ('URL and text') partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. Minor ambiguity remains around the exact matching syntax of the URL pattern and the precise return field names, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, including its meaning and default behavior ('Filter links by URL pattern (empty = all)'). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exact operation: 'Get all links on the page with URL and text.' The scope is explicit ('all links'), the resource is clear ('the page'), and the output content is specified ('URL and text'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_url or get_text.

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 when to use the tool: when you need all links on the current page. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as query_selector_all, extract_structured, or inspect_element, and it gives no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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